get_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the context that it returns the 'current' snapshot and enumerates the included components (source, claim, fact, comparison, proposal), which gives a preview of the response content. No contradiction exists, and the additional disclosure is modest but useful for setting expectations.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action ('Return') and the object (snapshot listing). There is no redundant information or filler, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's simplicity (single ID parameter) and the presence of an output schema that likely defines the snapshot structure, the description is sufficient to convey the core purpose. It communicates that the result is a snapshot of five named components, which is enough for an agent to decide invocation. It does not mention error conditions or edge cases, but the output schema and annotations cover the essential contract.

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 the single parameter audit_id, and the schema already states it is 'Identifier returned by create_audit'. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific details, so it does not compensate beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and specifies the resource as the 'current source, claim, fact, comparison, and proposal snapshot' for an audit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_audits, which would likely return a list of audit summaries rather than a detailed snapshot. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The only usage hint comes indirectly from the parameter schema ('Identifier returned by create_audit'), which implies it should be used after creating an audit, but this is not stated in the description.

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