Audit Tracking

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: parallel execution of three sub-tools and the production of a unified report with score, severity, and cross-tool diagnosis.

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 one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, names the components, and summarizes outputs efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns at a high level. It could specify score ranges or failure behavior, but for a single-parameter read-only audit tool, the key context is present.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'url' parameter with type and format, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no new meaning to the parameter itself, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Full tracking audit'), lists the exact sub-tools it runs, and describes the output (unified report with global score, severity summary, cross-tool diagnosis). This clearly distinguishes it from the individual sibling tools.

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 clearly positions audit_tracking as the comprehensive combined audit option relative to the individual check tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over a single check.

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