local_audit

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, it discloses cost (50 credits), latency (15-45 seconds), and async execution — three operational traits an agent cannot get from structured fields. It also names the concrete return fields, so the agent knows the shape of the result without an output schema.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: trigger, return payload, and cost/latency warning. The most decision-critical constraint (expensive, confirm first) is placed after the payload but before the timing caveat, and nothing is redundant.

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 two-required-param aggregator with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger, the full list of returned metrics, the credit cost, and the expected wall time. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and to warn the user.

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% with both parameters documented ('City and state', 'Business name'), so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description adds no format guidance or constraints on business_name/location (e.g., disambiguation, use of location_search first), so the baseline of 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 and composite resource: 'comprehensive local SEO check: SERP + profile + reviews + competitors in one call'. It enumerates exactly which data domains are bundled, which distinguishes it from single-signal siblings like local_pack, organic_serp, google_reviews, and competitor_gap.

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?

'Use when running a comprehensive local SEO check' gives a clear triggering context, and the 'in one call' framing implicitly signals the alternative is running the individual tools separately. It also adds a procedural gate: 'confirm with user first' due to cost. It stops short of explicitly naming the narrower sibling tools or stating when not to use it.

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