agenta_audit_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a submission/mutation-style operation, whether a request is queued or a report is returned immediately, whether anything is sent to the merchant, or whether it can be repeated. Only the incidental 'free' hint adds any context.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the tool's subject is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but it is cleanly structured and wastes no tokens.

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 four-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says almost nothing about process, outcome, or return behavior. An agent cannot tell what happens after calling it or how to interpret success.

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 100%, with all four parameters documented and two enums enumerated in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the url, category, delivery, or description fields beyond what the schema already states.

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 names an action ('Ask for') and a resource ('Revenue & Pricing Audit'), so the general intent is inferable, but 'ask for' is vague about whether this submits a request, generates a report, or just returns a link. It also gives no differentiation from the sibling agenta_audit_show, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus agenta_audit_show or any of the other audit-related siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a merchant URL is required, or that this is a submission/request flow). The only guidance is the word 'free', which is not actionable selection criteria.

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