Audit summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description still adds real value by disclosing the returned analytical content, including the notable 'claimed->verified transitions (false COMPLETE)' concept an agent could not guess. It does not mention cost, aggregation window, or freshness, which keeps it below 5.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short usage clause, front-loaded with 'Portfolio view', with zero filler. The telegraphic noun-list style ('claimed->verified transitions (false COMPLETE)') is efficient but slightly cryptic without domain context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by naming the five categories of aggregate data returned. For a read-only, zero-required-parameter aggregate tool this is close to sufficient; only the response format and the time scope of the aggregates are left unstated.

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% and the single parameter include_samples is already documented with its default in the schema. The description adds nothing about that parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters 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?

The description enumerates concretely what the tool returns: verified/claimed status counts, claimed->verified transitions flagged as false COMPLETE, top risk categories, violations by system, and manual-review counts. That makes the resource unmistakable and differentiates it from case-level siblings like ghost_get_case and ghost_list_cases. It falls short of 5 because there is no explicit verb and it never names the sibling it replaces for aggregate questions.

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?

'Good for dashboards and executive briefs' implies the intended consumption context, so an agent can infer this is the roll-up entry point. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. ghost_list_cases for per-case detail), leaving routing to inference.

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