page_audit_get_reports_for_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the return format (array with detailed fields), explains status values, recommends sorting, and importantly notes 'Does not consume API credits'—a critical operational detail not inferable from the schema.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by essential details on returns, usage, status values, sorting, and API credit impact. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, return data, usage context, status decoding, sorting advice, and API credit impact. However, it lacks details on error handling or pagination defaults, leaving minor gaps.

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 schema already documents all parameters (pageId, limit, offset). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or usage tips for pagination, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Get history of all audit reports') and resource ('for a specific page'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'page_audit_get_last_scans' or 'page_audit_get_results_report' by focusing on historical reports rather than recent scans or detailed results.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to track scan completion and view historical results'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'page_audit_get_last_scans' for only recent scans.

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