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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about what the call returns (findings and evidence) plus a workflow handoff, but says nothing about auth requirements for guest_token or behavior on an invalid/expired audit ID.

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 with the retrieval purpose front-loaded and the alternative routing second. 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 no output schema, the description does briefly characterize the return ('findings and evidence'), and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent can call it correctly. The only real gap is the unexplained required guest_token, which is the more minor of the two structured omissions.

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 only 50%: 'id' is documented in the schema (including the `Audit.id` provenance) while 'guest_token' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 ('Re-read') and resource ('audit') and clarifies scope by naming what is included ('findings and evidence'). It distinguishes itself from generation siblings like audit_site/audit_url by implying retrieval of an existing audit, though it never explicitly contrasts with 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?

It explicitly routes the agent to an alternative for a defined condition: 'Use generate_fix_prompt for correction steps.' That is clear context, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus re-running an audit or what the guest_token requirement implies.

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