Get Issues By URL

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool returns a 'detailed list' but does not specify output format, pagination, or required prior context (e.g., audit must be complete). The scope (single page) is clear, but other behavioral traits like data freshness or rate limits are absent.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 has 3 parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the input context and output type. It lacks details on output structure but is sufficient for a retrieval tool. Sibling tools are numerous, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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% for all three parameters (url, url_id, audit_id). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides about the parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a detailed list of all issues (errors, warnings, notices) for a single page within an audit. It uses specific verb 'retrieves' and resource 'issues', distinctly different from sibling tools like getAuditReport or getAuditPagesByIssue.

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 usage for a single page but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getAuditPagesByIssue or getCrawledPages. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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