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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: results are scoped to a single audit and are pre-sorted by impact, and each returned record carries severity, category and an issue_fingerprint. It does not mention pagination behavior or what happens with an empty/invalid audit.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place: the first establishes scope and sort order, the second establishes the return record shape and links to the downstream mutation tool. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by naming the fields present on each issue and the ordering, which is what an agent needs to chain into update-issue-status. It stops short of covering pagination limits or how filtering interacts with ordering.

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% with enums on category and severity, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only alludes to severity and category as output field concepts rather than explaining them as filters, and says nothing about the limit/paging parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get the issues found in one site audit') plus an ordering guarantee ('highest impact first'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list-site-audits or get-site-health-summary, but the resource is narrow enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this belongs after run-site-audit or list-site-audits, and the mention of issue_fingerprint feeding update-issue-status is a helpful workflow pointer. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as get-site-health-summary for aggregated views.

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