audit_lifecycle

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent traits. The description adds contextual behavior by enumerating what the audit covers, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not describe return format or limitations, which is a minor 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that lists the key audit dimensions without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a 5 for conciseness.

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?

This is a complex tool with a nested request object, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description provides only a high-level summary. It does not explain how to specify the BOM vs MyList, what the response looks like, or any thresholds. For a tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 compensate. It hints that 'BOM' correlates with the 'items' parameter and 'MyList' with 'list_id', adding some meaning. However, it does not explain other parameters like maximum_lead_weeks or include_substitutions, nor how to construct the request.

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 uses a specific verb 'Audit' and clearly identifies the resource (BOM or MyList) and the specific lifecycle risk factors covered (end-of-life, last-buy, shortages, lead times, PCNs, substitutes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on comprehensive lifecycle auditing rather than just substitutions or PCN lookups.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a lifecycle risk audit of a BOM or MyList. It names the exact risk categories, providing a strong contextual cue. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for detailed substitution lists use get_substitutions'.

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