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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool returns the full report and includes 'fixes' for each finding, and that it does not use a tab. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether it creates a record, whether it requires authentication, or what happens to the audit report, which is relevant since audits can be stored operations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the important output detail ('fixes', 'without a tab') appears immediately. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 single-required-parameter tool with simple inputs and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the return value shape ('full report with fixes') and a notable behavioral contrast ('without a tab'). However, it omits any mention of side effects or auth requirements, which are meaningful for an audit operation without annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that 'fixes' are included in the report and that no tab is created, which helps interpret the output, but it doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audits') with a clear resource ('a URL') and states a distinctive output detail: it returns the full report with ready fixes and no tab. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audit and run_tab, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

The description implies the primary use case: auditing a URL and receiving fixes directly. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_audit, run_tab, or create_tab, but the mention of 'without a tab' gives a useful contextual contrast. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives named.

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