list_audits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: ordering (newest first), exact returned fields (scanId, domain, date, scores, open-gap count), a crucial caveat about scoring_epoch score comparability, and an auth requirement (signed-in account). This is more than most tool descriptions provide.

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?

Three dense sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and output fields; the second delivers the critical epoch caveat; the third ties to get_audit and auth. Every sentence 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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the return fields and the critical epoch warning. It also covers auth and points to get_audit for detail. For a simple one-parameter list tool, nothing important is missing.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (domain) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the domain filter, so it doesn't exceed the baseline. It does mention workspace scope, but that's not parameter-specific.

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 opens with 'List recent AI-visibility audits (scans) for your workspace, newest first'—a specific action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_audit by noting 'Pass a scanId to get_audit for the full breakdown,' making the list-vs-detail boundary explicit.

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 tells users when to use get_audit instead ('Pass a scanId to get_audit for the full breakdown') and warns about comparing scores across epochs. It doesn't explicitly exclude other siblings like run_scan or list_gaps, but the context makes the tool's role clear. Lacks an explicit 'use this when...' statement but the guidance is strong.

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