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

Adds useful context beyond the annotations: the audit must be completed, the tool returns screenshot URLs and scanner evidence, and the evidence is 'bounded' (though the bound is not specified). Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so this additional workflow and return-shape context is a meaningful supplement.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the return content front-loaded and the workflow constraint clearly following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back at a high level. More detail on the shape or size of 'bounded scanner evidence' would improve it, but it is largely complete.

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 both audit_id and context are fully documented in the schema. The description implies an audit_id is needed for a completed audit but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (return) and resource (screenshot URLs and bounded scanner evidence) for a completed Mobile Readiness Audit. It distinguishes itself somewhat from report-generation siblings by emphasizing raw evidence, though it does not explicitly name parse_mobile_audit_report or render_mobile_audit_report.

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 a clear sequencing rule: use before Claude writes a qualitative report. The prerequisite that the audit be completed is also stated. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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