get_audit

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: bulky raw fields are omitted, and it clarifies the three-state semantics of the citation matrix ('not_run' does not mean a miss). It also states the signed-in requirement. Lacks disclosure about pagination, performance, or what happens with invalid/expired scanIds.

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 information-dense and well-organized, front-loading the purpose. However, it is somewhat long and lists many field categories in one long sentence, which slightly reduces scannability. Still efficient overall with no wasted filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the return contents (scores, per-engine summary, matrix, competitors, gaps, check counts) making return expectations clear. It compensates for missing schema by detailing the citation matrix states. Could add pagination or error behavior, but the core information is well covered for a single-item detailed fetch tool.

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?

Only one parameter (scanId), and schema coverage is 100% with a clear description. The description reinforces the source of the id (from list_audits) in the prose, adding workflow value beyond the schema. With a single well-documented param, the baseline 3 applies; description adds provenance clarity, supporting a 4.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get one audit in detail by scanId'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling list_audits by stating it retrieves a single detailed audit. Rich detail on what is included (scores, citation summary per engine, matrix, competitors, gaps, check counts).

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?

Explicitly ties usage to scanId from list_audits, establishing a clear workflow context. It states the audit is for AI-visibility and notes the requirement of a signed-in account. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_visibility or get_engine_answers regarding when to choose one over another, though the distinct purpose is strongly implied.

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