audit_service_calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what it scans (action-chain JS, Actions.callRest), what it compares (key sets, not values), and what it flags (keys some apps send that others omit). It doesn't describe output shape, but that gap is minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core operation before the comparison mechanism and the use case. Each sentence carries distinct information – no restatement of the name or title.

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?

For a read-only audit tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys enough: what it scans, what it compares, and the intended diagnostic. Only the practical result format (e.g. per-endpoint diff grouping) is left implicit, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces app/endpoint filtering through its phrasing ('each app', 'cross-app', 'per endpoint') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already gives.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Cross-app audit of REST service usage' that 'finds every Actions.callRest call in the repo's action-chain JS' and compares parameter keys per endpoint. It explicitly draws the boundary ('Compares key sets, not values'), which distinguishes it from sibling audit tooling like run_audit.

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?

Gives a concrete use case: 'Use it to check a shared service connection is mapped consistently across apps.' That states when to reach for it, but it never names an alternative (e.g. run_audit) or an exclusion, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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