request_quick_audit

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a future scorecard URL + ETA, has rate limits (5/day anonymous, 50/day identified), and produces signed evidence + claim verification within ~24h (sooner if founder triggers manually). This gives the agent a thorough understanding of expected service behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose is stated first, followed by usage trigger, return value, rate limits, and timeline. Each sentence provides high-value information without redundancy.

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?

The tool is well-documented: it covers what it does, when to use it, what returns (URL+ETA), limitations (rate limits), and process (signed evidence, timeline). Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return expectations. All necessary context is present.

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 100%, as every parameter (url, why, name, requester) has a description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Request that Hlido audit'), the resource ('a NEW AI agent that has no review yet'), and the context (no_review_found from trust_check or get_scorecard). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting new agents without existing reviews.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use this when trust_check or get_scorecard returns no_review_found and you need a verdict before delegating to the unknown agent.' This provides a clear trigger and purpose, differentiating from alternatives without needing to name them.

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