Get Audit Report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the report contents but does not mention prerequisites (audit must be completed), side effects (none, read-only), or authorization needs. The agent cannot infer that this is a non-destructive read operation beyond the 'get' naming convention.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately listing what the report includes. No redundant or vague language.

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 simple retrieval with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks error handling guidance (e.g., invalid audit_id) and does not differentiate from other audit-related get tools despite the sibling list. Adequate but with room for improvement.

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 coverage is 100% for the single required parameter audit_id. The description adds context that the audit must be completed, which is not in the schema description. This adds minor value, meeting the baseline 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 retrieves the full, detailed report for a completed website audit, listing included contents (health score, domain properties, broken down checks). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like DATA_getAuditStatus or DATA_listAudits.

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 implies the tool should be used after an audit is completed, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like getAuditStatus or getAuditHistory. With many audit-related siblings, guidance on when to use this tool is minimal.

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