dante.run_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: external multi-LLM querying and SHA-256 cryptographic attestation of results. However, it never says whether the audit is read-only or persists data, how long it runs, what 'on danteix.com' implies (published report? hosted endpoint?), or what the paid-key requirement means for cost.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action verb first and no filler. It is dense with brand jargon but wastes no words.

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 five-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the definition should say what comes back (report structure, attestation artifact) and what side effects occur. It hints at the attestation output but leaves the return shape and execution semantics underspecified.

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%, so all five parameters, including the vertical_mode options and the live_geo paid-key caveat, are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Execute') and a clearly scoped resource (a multi-model GEO/brand-reputation audit across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity), which separates it from the sibling probe/query/forge/remediate tools. The '9-Circle Dante IX' branding is proprietary jargon an agent cannot decode, keeping it short of a 5.

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 statement of when to run a full audit versus dante.probe_geo_share or dante.query_street_friction, no prerequisites, and no note that live_geo incurs paid API usage. The agent is left to infer timing and alternatives entirely.

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