audit

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

Discloses asynchronous behavior (status polling) and return contents (scores, failed checks, recommendations). With no annotations, this adequately covers key behavioral traits. Does not mention authentication error handling or rate limits.

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 concise sentences covering action, asynchronous detail, and return values. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Completeness is high given no output schema: explains what data is returned and the polling mechanism. Could mention error responses or idempotency but not critical.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no further detail about parameter usage or formats, so baseline 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?

Clearly states 'Fetch a Webmatik audit by id', uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'run_audit' which creates audits.

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?

Provides explicit polling advice ('poll every ~15s until status is completed'), indicating when to use repeatedly. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear given single sibling.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description adequately discloses the audit's scope (70+ checks, 0–100 score), timing (60–180s), and that it returns auditId immediately. It also notes the API key requirement, but doesn't detail error handling or rate limits.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the main purpose, then provide timing and next steps. It is well-structured with no 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?

Given no output schema, the description clarifies the immediate return value (auditId) and directs to poll get_audit. It covers the key aspects of the async operation, though it could detail the returned object structure more.

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% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states it starts a full Webmatik growth audit covering SEO, performance, AI readiness, etc., and distinguishes from sibling tool get_audit by specifying it returns auditId immediately for polling.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to start an audit) and directs to use get_audit for results. It also mentions the prerequisite API key and where to obtain it, but doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios.

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