Read an audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: an authorization constraint (only the account that started the run, or for a guest the same address, can read it) and the fact that the payload evolves between in-progress and finished states. It does not cover rate limits or how long a run is retained.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded: what the tool reads, what it returns over time, then the ownership restriction. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not spell out return values, and it still sketches the shape (progress, score out of 100, top fixes). The authorization restriction is the one non-obvious requirement for correct invocation, and it is stated explicitly. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The id analyze_site returned'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description reinforces run_id's provenance by tying it to a run 'started by analyze_site' but adds no format, syntax, or validation detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read an audit') and immediately distinguishes itself from its producer sibling by naming analyze_site as the tool that starts the run. The description also defines what the read returns at each stage (progress, then score out of 100 and top fixes), so an agent can tell it apart from analyze_site without opening either schema.

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?

Makes the lifecycle explicit: analyze_site starts a run, get_analysis reads it, and the result changes over time (progress while running, then final score). That gives clear context for when to call it. It stops short of stating exclusions or alternatives beyond the implied pairing with analyze_site, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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