audit_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only the aggregation dimensions. It never states that the call is read-only, that it is a computed summary rather than stored data, or what shape/grouping the counts take — though the three listed categories do convey the returned content at a high level.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the core concept (progress overview) front-loaded and the three dimensions enumerated, so every word earns its place. The sentence-fragment style and lack of a verb are minor demerits.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the return content, which it partly does by naming the three per-status breakdowns. It omits the status vocabulary, the shape of the counts, and any read-only assurance — adequate but with clear gaps for a status/summary tool.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description does not need to add param syntax and nothing is missing or misleading.

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 fragment 'Progress overview: claims per status, sources per status, rewrites per status' states a specific aggregation resource and its three dimensions, so an agent can tell it apart from atomic verbs like get_claim or list_claims. It lacks a full verb phrase and gives no explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource is clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a caller should prefer this over list_claims/get_claim or any other sibling, and no prerequisites. The closest thing to guidance is the implicit assumption that the caller wants a summary rather than raw records.

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