get_site_audits_list

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 key behavioral traits: it 'Does not consume API credits' (important cost/rate limit information), explains the purpose of the hasDetailData flag, and details what the response contains. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the limit/offset parameters.

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 purpose first, then output details, then behavioral notes, and ends with a practical tip. Every sentence adds value, though the output details section is somewhat dense. It could be slightly more streamlined but remains highly effective for its length.

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 list-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of what the response contains (reportId, date, SDO score, etc.) and important behavioral context (no API credit consumption). It lacks details about error responses and doesn't explicitly mention the pagination mechanism, but given the tool's relative simplicity and the comprehensive output description, it's quite complete.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions sorting by date but doesn't connect this to any parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Returns list of all audit reports') and resource ('for a project'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as the 'STARTING POINT for audit analysis' and noting that its reportId output should be used with other audit methods. This differentiates it from other audit-related tools like get_site_audit_deteailed_report or get_site_audit_results_by_categories.

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 usage guidance: it's the 'STARTING POINT for audit analysis' and specifies to 'Use reportId from response with other audit methods.' It also includes a practical tip: 'Sort by date to get most recent audit first.' This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus diving directly into detailed audit methods.

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