audit_find_non_embedded_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it explains the failure mode (path doesn't resolve on other machines), names common root causes (logo title-blocks from network shares never re-saved with EmbedImage=True), and clarifies the counting semantics of `checked` vs `violations`. It never explicitly states the tool is read-only/no-side-effect, nor which document or sheet set is scanned, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition, then justification, then returns – good ordering. The 'Returns:' block restates a dict shape that an output schema already provides, so it is partly redundant, though the `checked` vs `violations` distinction adds genuine value.

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 zero-parameter audit with an output schema, the description covers purpose, motivation, and the meaning of the two counters, which is what an agent needs to act. The remaining gap is scope: it doesn't say whether it scans the active schematic, all open documents, or a whole project.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly focuses its effort on scope and return semantics rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource with a precise qualifier: 'Find schematic images that are NOT embedded'. The distinction between embedded and path-referenced images is spelled out, so an agent can tell this apart from sibling audits and from sch_place_image without opening any 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?

The description establishes a clear use context ('manufacturer / customer sees broken images on the SCH PDFs') that implies running this before exporting or delivering documentation. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or state when-not to run it, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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