pws_audit_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the concrete audit categories, giving the agent an idea of what behaviors to expect. It doesn't describe return format, but given annotations, this is adequate.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the action 'Audit a player-company show' and then lists specific checks. Every word 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?

For a read-only audit with one parameter and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It lacks return format details, but the listed checks imply what the output covers. No critical information is missing for calling it.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the single parameter showId is self-explanatory from its name and type (integer, minimum 1). The description does not add further semantics, but none are necessary for this simple parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'audit', the resource 'player-company show', and enumerates specific checks (empty cards, invalid winners, title-match risks, repeated workers, runtime readiness). This distinguishes it from generic show tools and provides a clear purpose.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies usage for validating a show, but does not compare to related tools like pws_validate_show_plan or explain when this audit is appropriate versus other show-related operations.

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