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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful traits beyond that: deterministic, free, no remote fetching, no signing/payment, and no semantic verification. It also discloses exactly what categories of issues it reports, which is valuable behavioral context for an agent.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by a compact list of checks and then the limitations. Every clause adds useful 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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough to guide invocation: it states the inputs, the kinds of issues detected, the fact that it produces validated evidence request batches, and the boundaries of its behavior. Combined with the schema constraints and annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this tool appropriately.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the tool description carries the burden of clarifying the two parameters. It explains that 'report' is text and 'references' are structured refs using [cite:id] markers, and it mentions URL/quote checks. It does not spell out the exact object shape, but the schema supplies types and constraints, so the description adds sufficient semantic grounding.

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 ('audit') with a precise resource ('caller-supplied report text and structured references using [cite:id] markers'), then enumerates the exact checks performed. It also distinguishes itself from evidence-preparation and validation siblings by stating what it does not do, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 gives clear context: it is a preflight audit that is free, deterministic, and limited to citation/reference checks. The explicit exclusions ('No fetch, signing, payment, semantic verification or claim-coverage score') help an agent avoid using it for those needs, though it does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead.

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