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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable caveats: the output can be long, missing/withheld sections remain unknown, and buyer journeys are modelled rather than customer research.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by practical routing and caveats. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague language.

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?

The description covers purpose, alternatives, output format, length expectations, and important data caveats. It is nearly complete, but the audit_id parameter remains unexplained and there is no output schema to clarify return structure further.

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 50%: topic is well documented in the schema, but audit_id has no description. The description mentions topic only in passing and does not explain audit_id's source, format, or expected value, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 (complete stored audit), and format (markdown), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from ask_audit and run_cro_skill by naming those alternatives for narrower needs.

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 this tool for a full review, use topic or ask_audit for one question, and use run_cro_skill for a specific deliverable. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is concrete and actionable.

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