audit_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value by listing the concrete sections returned, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide relevance. It does not state default behavior for a missing month (e.g., current month) or whether an empty month returns zeros versus no data.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource named first and the payload contents front-loaded. Every token carries information; the only structural weakness is the missing verb, which makes it read as a label rather than a capability statement.

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?

With two fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description does the important work of naming the returned sections. It still falls short on defaults for optional parameters and on how this report relates to the other report tools, which matters given several report-named siblings.

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 env documented as a demo-only enum pointing at list_environments and month documented as YYYY-MM, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's word 'Monthly' loosely reinforces the month parameter but adds no format or default semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource as a monthly audit report and enumerates the content areas it covers (volume, runs, findings, outages, coverage, vuln SLA). However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that calling it retrieves rather than computes or generates the report. It also gives no cue distinguishing it from the sibling get_report or list_reports.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the report siblings, and no mention of the effect of omitting the optional month or env parameters. The agent is left to infer the intended usage from the name alone.

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