aadc.audit_reading_grade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'audit' (likely non-destructive) but does not disclose whether the tool modifies files, generates reports, or requires specific permissions. Behavioral details like output format or side effects are missing.

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 sentence, highly concise. It front-loads the key action and scope, though it could benefit from a brief note on output or return value to improve structure without adding length.

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 clarify what the tool returns or produces, but it does not. The reference to standards is modestly helpful given sibling tools for reading standards. Overall, the description is adequate but leaves gaps about outputs and deeper context.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not provide extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: auditing user-facing copy for reading grade above an age-appropriate threshold, referencing specific standards (4, 11). This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools, though the exact meaning of the standards is not elaborated.

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 implies usage for reading grade audits by naming the action and standards, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the sibling tools list, the agent can infer specialization, but explicit guidance is absent.

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