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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: what an audit record contains, and how the period parameter changes the returned payload (score at period end, extra `period` block) and its relationship to audit_score_end in get_period_summary.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence before the conceptual explanation and the Args block. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary (the audit-snapshot definition could be tightened), but every block earns its place.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing the audit fields and the period-filtered return shape. Complete enough for correct invocation, though filter combinations (status with period) and pagination toward the limit are not discussed.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents brand_id, audit_id, status, limit range/default, and the period format (YYYY-MM or YYYY-Qn) plus its non-obvious response semantics. Only user_intent is undocumented, and that parameter already carries its own schema description.

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 ('List site audits for a brand, or fetch one by ID') and immediately explains what an audit is — a snapshot with issue counts, score, and CMS platform. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_audit_findings for deeper inspection.

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?

Routes the agent to the correct sibling ('To go deeper into one audit, call get_audit_findings') and explains the semantic effect of the period filter. It lacks explicit when-not guidance versus other list-style siblings such as list_brands or get_audit_findings for bulk retrieval, but the primary fork is covered.

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