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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose whether the audit is read-only, what permissions are needed, what it returns, or any side effects. 'Conservative' is the only hint at behavior, which is too vague to be actionable.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise, which slightly limits its effectiveness.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description should explain how the tool is invoked (e.g., what data it consumes) and what it returns. It does neither, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool confidently.

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?

The tool defines zero parameters, so the schema cannot provide parameter semantics. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description adds no parameter-related meaning because none is needed.

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 analysis ('audit') on a specific resource ('work opportunity') and enumerates the dimensions checked (fit, fee, scam, eligibility, pay). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like honesty_audit or attest_quality, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., rank_opportunities, honesty_audit), and no preconditions. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a work opportunity,' leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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