Audit Independence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by identifying what is audited, but it doesn't explain what 'audit' entails operationally or what the outcome reflects beyond the product-boundary check.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the overall meaning.

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 zero parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation context. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance or expected output semantics, but the low parameter complexity and available annotations make the description reasonably complete.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Schema description coverage is effectively complete, and the description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed.

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 names a specific verb ('Audit') and a distinct resource ('source imports and dynamic execution') with a stated criterion ('against product boundaries'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings, though 'product boundaries' is somewhat vague and could use one clarifying phrase.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool compared to siblings like validate_strategy_spec, inspect_dataset, or doctor. The description implies an auditing use case but provides no explicit when-to-use or exclusionary context.

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