store_audit_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does disclose useful behavior: it scans both stores, the pattern is a case-insensitive regex, and it 'returns what matched and where'. The read-only nature is conveyed by 'Scan'/'Returns', though it never explicitly states side effects or permissions, leaving a small gap.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The placeholder warning and the return-value note each earn their place by preventing a mis-call.

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 single-parameter scan tool with an output schema (so return format need not be re-explained), the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and the placeholder pitfall. It is nearly complete, losing only for not clarifying which stores are scanned or the read-only guarantee.

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% and the single parameter has only a default value, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that pattern is a case-insensitive regex, what to pass (domains/names that must not appear), and that the default is a placeholder. Minor remaining gap on regex syntax details keeps it from a 5.

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 and resource ('Scan both stores for text that should not be there') and narrows the scope to identity leaks (wrong company e-mail/name in listings, reviews, contacts). This clearly separates it from the generic diagnostic sibling store_doctor, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it ('Built to catch identity leaks') and warns that the default pattern is only a placeholder, so callers know to pass real domains/names. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not-to-use, so it does not reach a 5.

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