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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds genuinely useful caveats: the result can be long, missing/withheld sections stay unknown, and buyer journeys are modelled rather than real research. Those fidelity warnings go beyond anything in the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then alternatives, then caveats. Tight and purposeful, though the caveat sentence could be trimmed slightly.

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?

With no output schema the description correctly states the return format (markdown) and length expectation, and covers the routing alternatives and data caveats. It is close to complete for a simple two-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 50%: topic is documented in the schema with its key list, while audit_id is bare. The description only reinforces the topic alternative ('use topic ... for one question') without adding format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (read), resource (stored audit), scope (complete) and output format (markdown), which is enough to distinguish it from get_audit, ask_audit and run_cro_skill at a glance.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use the topic parameter or ask_audit for a single question, and run_cro_skill for a specific deliverable. This is a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-something-else statement, not an implied one.

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