Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/world-touching profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioural facts: it is a paid operation gated on check_balance authorisation, and it returns an audit_id that must be polled and then handed to run_cro_skill. It does not state what the destructive side effect actually consumes or whether re-running duplicates work, which keeps it off a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The workflow is front-loaded (authorise price, check for prior work, then invoke), and every sentence carries a distinct operational instruction or boundary. No filler or restated name/title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the pricing prerequisite, the prior-audit search branch, the returned audit_id, and the two downstream calls. Nothing required to invoke and correctly sequence it is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents url and context, including the 500-character limit and the 'leave it out if they have not said' guidance. The description's 'Pass campaign context already supplied' only echoes the schema's intent rather than adding format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a new landing-page audit') and explicitly excludes adjacent work ('Does not design or build a page'), which routes the agent away from build_page. An agent can distinguish it from get_audit, run_cro_skill, and build_page without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit ordered workflow: authorise price via check_balance first, search for existing work when the request concerns a prior audit, then call this tool. It also names the follow-on tools (get_audit with wait:25, then run_cro_skill) rather than leaving the agent to infer them, and supplies an exclusion condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.