get_site_audit_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'track' and 'returns'), has no API credit consumption ('Does not consume API credits'), and clarifies scope ('across all audits in project'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste: it opens with the core purpose, states the return format, lists three specific use cases, provides parameter guidance with an example, and ends with a key operational note. Every sentence adds essential information.

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?

For a read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral context. However, it could be slightly improved by explicitly stating the tool's read-only nature or mentioning pagination behavior given the limit/offset parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it explains that errorName must be from 'the fixed enum list' and provides an example ('errorName='no_desc' shows trend of pages without meta description'), but doesn't elaborate on projectId, limit, or offset parameters.

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 specific action ('track how a SPECIFIC error type changed over time'), resource ('across all audits in project'), and output format ('Returns array with reportId, date, and count for each audit'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_site_audit_deteailed_report' by focusing on temporal trends rather than detailed snapshots.

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 explicitly provides three use cases ('verify if fixes are working', 'monitor if errors are growing', 'track specific problem areas'), specifies when to use it (for tracking error trends over time), and references a related tool ('get_site_audit_deteailed_report') for context on errorName values.

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