audit_all_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only, 'never writes,' explains the exact return shape (one entry per failing client with client name and run_id), and defines empty results as meaning all clients are healthy.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return behavior and safety, then routing guidance. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the return format, the omission behavior, the read-only nature, and how it differs from relevant siblings. No critical information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 sole parameter dkim_selector already has a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema fully documents it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the whole check catalogue against every client' while narrowing the output to 'only what needs attention.' It also explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by naming 'check' and 'find_across_clients' and their distinct scopes.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use 'check' for a single client with a reportかな, and 'find_across_clients' when checking one specific check across all clients. It also clarifies when this tool is appropriate by emphasizing it runs the whole catalogue against every client.

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