audit_form_release_package

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with "Inspect" — no contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral scope beyond the annotation: it reports unexpected roots and unresolved evidence, and explicitly disclaims release readiness. It still leaves out pagination/limits, failure modes, and which input source (file_path vs content_base64) is consumed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the limiting clause follows immediately. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema the description should carry more of the result contract; it gestures at reported findings (unexpected roots, unresolved evidence) but not structure. For a 4-parameter tool with one required nested manifest and 25% schema coverage, the missing input-source and enum guidance is a real gap.

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 only 25% (just environment_profile), so the description must compensate. It partially does by characterizing the required components array as a "component and content-hash manifest," but never explains file_path vs content_base64 as alternative ZIP sources, nor the component_type enum values (2/9/60/61), nor the 241-item cap.

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 a specific verb ("Inspect") and a specific resource ("an exported solution ZIP") plus the comparison basis (an explicit component and content-hash manifest). That distinguishes it reasonably well from generic siblings like inspect_solution_package or export_solution, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 clause "does not establish release readiness" is a genuine exclusion that tells an agent this is a diagnostic audit, not a go/no-go gate. However, it never says when to pick this over inspect_solution_package / inspect_form_solution_package, nor what prerequisite manifest must exist, so usage is only implied.

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