request_quick_audit

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: returns a future scorecard URL + ETA, rate limits (5/day anonymous, 50/day identified), and turnaround time (~24h or sooner). No contradictions or omissions.

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 concise with two front-loaded sentences covering purpose and usage, followed by additional details. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description explains the return value (scorecard URL + ETA), rate limits, and timing constraints. It is fully complete for agent use.

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%, and the description adds extra meaning: explains the purpose of optional parameters (why helps prioritize, requester for rate-limiting/follow-up). This adds value beyond the schema definitions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Request that Hlido audit a NEW AI agent that has no review yet.' It specifies the verb (request audit), resource (new agent), and condition (no review yet), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like trust_check and get_scorecard.

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?

Directly states 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.' Provides explicit context and mentions alternative tools, giving clear guidance.

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