get_site_audit_deteailed_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the return structure (categories array with errors containing specific fields like key, priority, countAll, countNew, countFixed) and explicitly states 'Does not consume API credits,' which is valuable operational context. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error handling, or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second details the return structure, the third explains parameter usage, the fourth links to sibling tools, and the fifth provides API credit information. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the return fields.

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 tool's complexity (detailed error analysis with comparison capabilities) and lack of output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining the return structure and how to use the parameters. It covers the key aspects needed for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to interpret results. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit error handling or pagination details.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantic purpose of compareReportId ('to track changes between audits') and how it relates to the output fields (countNew, countFixed). This contextual information goes beyond the schema's technical documentation of parameter types and constraints.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get COMPLETE error breakdown organized by categories') and resource ('detailed audit analysis'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's the 'Main method for detailed audit analysis' and mentions related tools like get_site_audit_history and get_site_audit_pages_spec_errors for different purposes.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Main method for detailed audit analysis' establishes primary use, and it specifies when to use sibling tools ('Use error.key with get_site_audit_history... or get_site_audit_pages_spec_errors...'). It also explains the purpose of the compareReportId parameter for tracking changes between audits.

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