audit_bio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses what the tool does (checks specific bio issues), the platform scope, and the return format (PASS/NEEDS WORK with a rewrite recipe). This is transparent for a read-only audit tool, though it does not discuss edge cases like missing platform.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence contributes specific value: the first lists audit dimensions, the second lists platforms and the return format. No repetition or 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: input (bio), optional platform (and its values), the audit criteria, and the output (PASS/NEEDS WORK with rewrite recipe). It does not explain default platform behavior, but this is a minor gap. Sibling tools are related but not referenced; that is acceptable here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating that 'platform' is used for per-platform character limits and listing valid values, and 'bio' is unambiguously the subject. However, it does not clarify behavior when platform is omitted (e.g., defaults to all platforms) or impose input constraints beyond being a string.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('profile bio'), and enumerates the exact audit dimensions (character limits, hype titles vs receipts, title-first openers, outcome language). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bio_rules or get_platform_strategy, which focus on rules and strategy rather than auditing.

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 through the action 'Audit', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide exclusions. It lists platforms and audit areas, yet offers no comparative guidance such as 'use get_bio_rules for rule reference' or 'when a bio needs a quick review'.

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