Get a site's violation-count trend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions chronological ordering, completed full-site runs, severity counts, and added/resolved markers, but omits details on authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses one effective sentence and then a brief note on score and plan. However, it could be structured more clearly with separate sections for different aspects.

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 there is no output schema, the description should cover the return format more thoroughly. It mentions counts by severity and added/resolved markers, but does not specify exact data structure or fields. The description is adequate for a simple tool but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on the 'limit' and 'siteHost' parameters beyond the schema. No added value for parameter semantics.

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 provides a chronological per-run point history of violation counts for a registered site, with counts by severity and added/resolved markers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sites, get_run, and run_journey, which serve different purposes.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a plan restriction (Pro+) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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