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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new facts: the result is free, cached (i.e., not freshly computed), and scoped to one fixed domain. It also sketches the return contents. It does not say how stale the cache is or whether the sample domain can be changed, but for a cached read that is minor.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with 'Free' and the artifact type, with no padding. It is somewhat dense but every clause (cached, fixed domain, score range, pass/warn/fail, evidence and fixes) carries 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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context (score range, per-check statuses, evidence/fixes) and the fixed target domain, and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret it is absent.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the implicit 'no args, fixed domain' behavior is correctly conveyed. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 ('cached example agent-readiness audit'), pins the exact target (cryptofeed402.site), and describes the payload (score 0-100, pass/warn/fail per check). It explicitly positions itself as the sample output of audit_agent_ready, so it is distinguishable from that sibling and from lookalikes like get_sample_brief and get_teaser.

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?

'so you can see the output of audit_agent_ready before paying' gives a clear condition for using this tool and names the paid alternative. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this if you need a live audit of your own domain' exclusion, which is the main residual gap.

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