page_audit_get_results_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 key behaviors: it returns structured data (categories array, data array, report object), details error attributes (priority, counts, drill-down availability), and explicitly states 'Does not consume API credits,' which is crucial operational context. However, it lacks information on 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: detailing return structure, error attributes, usage context, and API credit information. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of audit results and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the return structure (categories, data, report) and error details. It covers the main use case and operational note about API credits. However, it could be more complete by mentioning response formats (e.g., JSON), pagination, or error scenarios, especially without annotations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'pageId' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as example usage or prerequisites. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get detailed audit results for a page.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('audit results for a page'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'page_audit_get_last_scans' or 'page_audit_report_drill_down' by focusing on comprehensive results rather than scans or drill-downs.

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 analyze specific issues found during scan.' It implicitly suggests using it after a scan, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'page_audit_get_report_by_categories' or 'page_audit_get_reports_for_page' for comparison.

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