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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context: no Stripe session is created, checkout is false, and the sealed audit dataset stays server-side (i.e., no data exposure). Those are concrete traits the agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the handoff purpose and the no-payment/no-data-leak guarantees lead. The telegraphic fragments ('checkout=false') are terse but each 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still states the key output (the /audit URL). For a zero-required-parameter handoff tool it covers the essentials; only the parameter detail and explicit usage routing are thin.

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 0% for the single optional parameter, so the description has to carry the load. It does explain that 'pine' is optional and functions only as a query hint that never touches the server-side dataset, which is meaningful. It is still loose ('pine' vs 'pine_hint') and says nothing about format or the 5500-char limit.

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 action and artifact: 'Human-only Survival Audit handoff' that 'Returns the /audit URL.' The verb+resource+return value are all present, and 'human-only' telegraphs it apart from the automated backtest/arena siblings. It doesn't name a sibling directly, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Human-only' and 'checkout=false' imply the usage context (route a person to an audit page, no in-band purchase), and 'MCP never creates a Stripe session' clarifies the boundary. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus a sibling or when-not-to-use, so the guidance stays implicit.

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