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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains what the result contains: issues ranked by likely impact, affected pages, example URLs, plain-English fixes, checked/unchecked lists, page-limit note, and report URLs. It also adds an important behavioral instruction not to invent findings outside the result.

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 key prerequisite and then packs useful result details into a single dense sentence. It is not wasteful, but the long compound sentence could be structured more cleanly for readability.

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 the tool's role as a report retrieval step, the description covers the prerequisite, the two parameters, the report contents, limitations, and output links. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for further return-value detail, and nothing essential 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains top_n's range and default and ties audit_id to the preceding status call, though it does not describe the audit_id format explicitly.

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 retrieval action and resource: getting the audit report for a given audit_id. It clearly distinguishes this from get_audit_status by saying to use it once the status shows completed, and from start_site_audit by being the report-reading step.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: use this once get_audit_status shows completed. That effectively tells the agent when to use it and which sibling must precede it, leaving little ambiguity about sequencing.

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