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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: it does not synthesize advice beyond what is on the check, and a not_measured check returns that status as the answer. However, it omits the read-only nature and any error behavior (e.g. unknown check_id or 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope limit, then edge condition. Nearly every sentence earns its place.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, and the description does not describe the shape of the returned detail. For a two-param read tool it is adequate but leaves the return content and parameter formats undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely characterizes check_id ('one check id') and audit_id ('from an audit job or report'), but neither parameter's format or source is specified fully.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns 'full detail for one check id from an audit job or report.' That is clear enough for an agent to know it produces a single finding's detail versus the whole audit, though it never names a sibling tool to sharpen the contrast.

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 by 'full detail for one check id,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative (e.g. get_audit, audit_page) is named for broader views. The not_measured note describes an output condition, not a routing decision.

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