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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful output-behavior context: it does not add advice beyond what is already on the check, and a not_measured check is treated as the answer. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by useful clarifying constraints.

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 simple read-only lookup with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, it does not explain what 'full detail' contains or fully clarify the audit_id parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It clarifies check_id as the check to explain, but audit_id is only implied by 'from an audit job or report' and its format, source, and relationship to check_id are not specified.

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 resource and scope: full detail for one check id from an audit job or report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audit or get_crawl_issues by focusing on a single check, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Implies the tool is used to retrieve detail on a specific check id, and clarifies a not_measured edge case. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to sibling tools for broader audit or crawl data.

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