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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it shares the daily allowance with POST /api/audit and returns 402 with accepts[] when the quota is exceeded. These quota/error-code details are not derivable from the annotations or 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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the quota caveat. Every clause carries information.

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 two-param re-audit tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational risk (quota consumption and the 402 failure mode). It leaves the guest_token credential unexplained and doesn't say what a successful call yields, though no output schema obligates it to.

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 50%: the schema documents id as the tab to re-audit, but guest_token has no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about either parameter and does not compensate for the undocumented guest_token.

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?

"Re-audits the tab's URL" gives a specific verb (re-audit) plus resource (the tab's stored URL), so an agent can tell this apart from a fresh audit. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the audit_url sibling, which shares the same conceptual space.

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: you call this on an existing tab (id required) to refresh its audit rather than creating a new audit. There is no explicit when-to-use versus audit_url, get_audit, or tab_history, and no stated prerequisite beyond owning a tab id.

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