run_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the key safety trait: 'Never modifies anything' and lists the checks, which are all read-only. It also notes that the lookback window ends yesterday, adding behavioral nuance. It lacks details like rate limits or auth, but the essential safety profile is clear.

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 well-structured with a summary, a list of checks, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for a tool with this complexity.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, safety, and parameters, while the output schema exists to handle return values. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully with an Args section that explains each parameter: customer_id (digits, dashes stripped), days (lookback window ending yesterday, default 30), and min_spend (ignore entities below spend in account currency). This goes well beyond the schema.

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 'Audit' with a clear resource ('an account') and outcome ('report what is costing money or hiding data'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_accounts or gaql_query by focusing on comprehensive read-only checks.

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 provides clear context: it runs a comprehensive set of 12 read-only checks and explicitly states it never modifies anything, making it suitable for auditing without side effects. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives.

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