audit_answer

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context: it verifies source hashes and literal anchors, performs field accounting rather than entailment reasoning, and must surface missing evidence and unverified attribution. It does not describe the return payload or what happens on hash mismatch, but the audit semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded trigger followed by a compact item spec and a scope limitation; every sentence carries information. The item-shape sentence is dense and jargon-heavy, but it is the most efficient place for that detail.

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, two-parameter audit tool with no output schema, this is close to complete: the item contract, the check semantics, and the disclosure requirement are all present. The unexplained `checklist_id` and the absence of any description of the audit result are the remaining gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full documentation burden. It does a good job on the `items` structure — field, status enum values, statement, reason, and citation objects with id/quote/offset — but never explains `checklist_id`, leaving one of two required parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: audit each checklist field before the final answer. It also delimits the check type (hash, literal anchors, field accounting vs. semantic entailment), which separates it from a generic evidence tool. It never names a sibling, so differentiation is by content rather than routing.

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 clear trigger ('Before final answer') and an explicit exclusion ('NOT semantic entailment'), which tells the agent what this tool will not catch. It does not name alternatives such as evidence_checklist, so the agent must infer which tool creates the checklist versus audits it.

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