audit_identity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the detection purpose and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what inputs it expects, what outputs it produces, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and enumerates the key objects. While it is concise, it is somewhat minimal given the tool's complexity, but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness flaw.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter that is completely undocumented. The description fails to explain the input format (case_json), the nature of the output, or any context about what 'ARCO' channels are. For a tool with such limited schema info, the description is far from 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 schema has one parameter (case_json) with no description coverage (0%). The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on what case_json should contain or how it relates to the identity risk detection. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of information.

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 'Detecta' (detects) and clearly specifies the resource: risks related to incorrect business name, trade name, branch, or unofficial ARCO channel. This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like audit_argumentation and source_audit, which focus on different aspects.

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 context (when identity-related risks need to be checked) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools or conditions, so guidance is only implicit.

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