eds_audit_trend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', requires EDS_DA_TOKEN, explains the output format and content, and notes its dependency on the history sheet. This is comprehensive disclosure of auth, safety, and operational behavior.

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 packed with essential information: purpose, output details, data source, format option, auth requirement, and safety. No filler or redundancy; 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's main behavior: what it returns, what it depends on, its auth requirements, and its read-only nature. For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-described. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema—'Pass format:'text' for a short plain-text summary' essentially repeats the schema's enum description. No extra insight is provided for historyPath beyond the schema's default value. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('site health OVER TIME from the recorded snapshots'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like eds_audit_report (current report) and eds_audit_snapshot (writes snapshots). It also details the output (HTML trend view with SVG sparkline and per-dimension movement), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clarifies that it reads the history sheet written by eds_audit_snapshot, implying it should be used after snapshots exist. It also gives usage options (format:'text' for a summary). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool for trend analysis over time.

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