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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only intent through the verb 'view' and enumerates the two possible actions (list/get). However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid audit_id), default limit behavior, or any side effects—though for a history viewer, side effects are unlikely. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail, warranting a 3.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('View your past audit results') and then detailing the two modes. No wasted words, entirely focused on what the agent needs to know for selection and initial invocation.

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 and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It explains the tool's purpose and the two actions, but omits the meaning of 'limit' and what the returned data looks like (e.g., audit summaries vs. full details). For a simple tool this might be sufficient, but there are clear gaps that could confuse an agent invoking it correctly, so a 3 fits.

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 two of three parameters: 'action' (via 'List recent audits or retrieve a specific audit by ID') and 'audit_id' (the specific audit). The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its effect on listing unclear. The schema provides default/min/max, but the description adds no meaning for limit. This partial compensation earns a 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 the tool's function: 'View your past audit results.' It also specifies two modes—'List recent audits or retrieve a specific audit by ID'—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_audit_status or seo_crawl_status that focus on current statuses. The verb 'view' and the resource 'past audit results' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to view historical audit data rather than current status (which sibling tools seo_audit_status and seo_crawl_status likely cover). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the phrasing 'past audit results' implies a historical scope. This is slightly above the 'implied usage' level, so a 4 is appropriate.

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