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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does so by disclosing that only metadata is returned and that the underlying report text is unavailable — a substantive expectation-setting detail not present in the annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the use case and the key limitation. No filler or redundancy.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (metadata, date, source link) and what is not. It leaves a small gap around how to page or size results via the limit parameter.

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?

There is one parameter ('limit', default 20, max 50) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no mention of page size, default, or capping. With low coverage the description should compensate, and here it does not.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('stored State Audit Office report metadata'), plus the fields returned (date, source link). It is distinguishable from statistical releases (get_dzs_releases) only implicitly, since no sibling is named, so it falls short of 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?

'Use for public audit-report discovery' gives an implied use case, and the note that full third-party text is not returned acts as a soft exclusion. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative sibling tool for other audit/statistics content.

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