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

Annotation already covers readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds genuine value beyond them: it confirms 'no render', states the call is strictly project-scoped on the explicit id, specifies that it returns the project identity alongside the result, and characterizes the output as 'findings'. This is meaningful behavioral context absent from the schema.

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 sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded, and no filler. It is dense with domain vocabulary (payoff hold, punctuation family, rung) that an agent may need prior context to parse, which slightly offsets the efficiency.

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 one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: what is audited, what the findings cover, and that the project identity is echoed back. It does not describe finding severity or response shape, a minor gap for a single-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 100% and the sole project_id is fully documented in the schema (including the 'never guess from active-project pointer' rule). The description restates the same scoping constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb (audit) and resource (the project's motion device ledger) and enumerates exactly what it checks: intensity, flash safety, each device's expected rung, and restraint rules. It is distinguishable from other audits (audit_audio_mix, audit_captions) by domain, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like proof_device or justify_verification_findings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'READ, no render' and 'PROJECT-SCOPED' tell the agent this is a non-rendering diagnostic tied to an explicit project, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to proof_device, suggest_devices, or the other audit tools.

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