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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it has, or what constitutes 'typed remediation.' The phrase 'typed remediation' is ambiguous and leaves uncertainty about whether this tool mutates state or just returns a report.

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 sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's narrow purpose, and it does so compactly.

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?

Even though the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description omits essential context: what the audit returns, how results are formatted, and what 'typed remediation' implies. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or expected output from this description alone.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings because there are none to explain.

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 provides a specific verb ('audit'), a clear scope ('register-wide'), and a precise subject ('explicit accepted token bounds that contradict legacy generic token_delta prerequisite semantics'). This distinguishes it from the other get_* sibling tools, which are general read operations.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent decide if this audit is appropriate for a given situation.

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