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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it explains the multi-block JSONL structure, that weeks with no completed run contribute no block, and that weekStartDates are Monday start dates. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate edge cases.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then details the output format and usage. It is informative without being overly verbose, and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior. Slightly long but well-organized.

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?

The tool is complex with multiple parameters and a nested output structure, and no output schema exists. The description fully compensates by explaining the output format, the date format, the rule key example, and the behavior for missing weeks. It provides all necessary information for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including the example rule key and the optional limit. The description does not introduce new semantic information about parameters beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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 the tool retrieves detailed output rows for audit rules across multiple historical weeks, specifying the exact output format (multi-block JSONL) and its intended use (comparing findings over time). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'audit_rule_output_table' by emphasizing historical multi-week data.

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 explicitly states the use case 'Use to compare how findings changed over time', providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly contrast with the non-historical sibling, leaving some inference to the agent.

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