get_public_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return content ('scores for privacy, security, accessibility, and performance plus a summary of key findings'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid UUIDs.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and required parameter, the second describes the return value. Every word earns its place and the information is appropriately front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, parameter context, and return content. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or authentication requirements, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of annotations/output schema, it's reasonably 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'uuid' parameter completely. The description adds marginal value by specifying this is for 'publicly shared scan results', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Fetch'), resource ('publicly shared Polaris Audit report'), and identifier mechanism ('by its UUID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying this is for 'publicly shared' reports only, unlike 'get_scan_result' which likely retrieves private scans.

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 about when to use this tool ('Fetch a publicly shared Polaris Audit report by its UUID'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. It implies this is for public reports only, which helps differentiate from 'get_scan_result', but doesn't provide explicit exclusion guidance.

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