get_audit_results

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates a read operation. The description adds value by disclosing that a 202 response means the search is still processing and that retrying is necessary. This behavioral nuance goes beyond the annotations.

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, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes important behavioral notes. However, a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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?

The tool has an output schema (indicated in context) and all parameters are well-documented. The description covers the retry behavior and implicitly ties to a preceding search. It could mention that this is for general audit results, but the sibling tools help distinguish that.

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%, with all three parameters (search_uuid, limit, next_page_token) already described clearly in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for these parameters, so the 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 'Get results from a previously triggered audit search,' specifying the verb (Get) and resource (results from audit search). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'search_audits' (which triggers the search) and 'get_query_audit_results' / 'get_system_audit_results' (which target different audit types).

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 guidance on when to use the tool (after triggering a search) and what to do if results are not ready (retry after a 202 response). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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