Audit tags against a controlled vocabulary

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it enumerates via the cloud Web API, reports off-taxonomy tags, and handles required tiers. No contradictions found.

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 paragraph of five sentences, covering purpose, input format, output, and read-only nature. It is mostly concise and front-loaded, though slightly verbose in explaining reports.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what reports it produces. Annotations support completeness. Minor gaps remain in output structure details.

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 low (43%), but the description adds meaning for key parameters like `vocabulary` (inline example) and `include_auto`. However, parameters like `limit`, `library_id`, `library_type`, and `vocabulary_path` are not explained in the description, limiting full compensation.

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 clearly states the tool audits tags against a controlled vocabulary with priority tiers, distinguishing it from tag listing or management tools. It specifies three types of reports, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (for auditing tags), including the types of reports generated. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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