impact_full_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the high-level outcome (scoring, recommendations) without disclosing any behavioral traits such as processing behavior, output format, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence of seven words that conveys the core purpose and outputs without waste. Every word is essential and there is no redundant information.

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 tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides only a vague promise of 'scoring and recommendations'. It fails to explain what the audit evaluates, how scoring is generated, or the structure of recommendations, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description itself adds no param-specific details, but the schema does the heavy lifting, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 performs a 'Complete positioning audit' with outputs of 'scoring and recommendations', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by using 'complete' versus their more focused names, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or how it relates to the sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer that 'complete' means comprehensive without clear direction.

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