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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: it is a read of stored data, it does not trigger a scan, and it imposes no load on the target. It stops short of describing behavior when no stored audit exists, but the main side-effect profile is clear.

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 sentences with no wasted words; the primary action and the no-scan guarantee are front-loaded, followed by a benefit. Every phrase 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only report tool with no output schema, the description covers the core contract: what is returned, the absence of a scan, and the speed/load benefit. It does not specify the return format or error behavior, but the tool's simplicity keeps these gaps minor.

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 already describes domain as 'Bare hostname' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Return'), resource ('most recent stored audit for a domain'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from a scan by saying it does not trigger a new scan. This makes its purpose clear and differentiates it from the sibling scan_site.

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 phrase 'without triggering a new scan' plus 'Faster and free of load' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a stored report is acceptable and no active scan is desired. It does not explicitly name scan_site as the alternative, but the intended use case is evident.

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