audit_results

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates fetch (read) operation but does not disclose pagination limits or error conditions beyond what the schema provides. Some value is added by specifying 'completed audit 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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 simple nature (3 parameters, no nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description adequately specifies the core functionality. It could be more complete by noting return format or error handling, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 3 parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'fetch' and resource 'paginated violations for a completed audit result by resultId'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like audit (which runs audits) and audit_status (which checks completion status).

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 implies usage after a failed audit result is completed via the phrase 'completed audit result', but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor suggest alternatives like audit_status for checking completion.

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