Get audit results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the return data (score, top actions, main issues vs. all pages and problems). It omits any statement about permissions, error conditions, or whether the audit must be completed before retrieval.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the default behavior before the full=true override. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description sensibly describes what each mode returns, which is the key missing structured information. The only gap is the absence of any note about the audit needing to exist/be complete, which the sibling get_audit_status implies is a real concern.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates that full=true yields the complete payload and default yields a summary, adding the concrete contents of each mode but no format or sizing details 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 states a specific verb (Récupère) and resource (résultats d'un audit) and outlines the two response modes. It never names or contrasts with the closely related siblings get_audit_status or list_site_audits, so an agent must reason about the distinction itself.

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?

It clearly tells the agent which mode to pick: default summary versus full=true for the complete payload, and enumerates what each contains. It does not address prerequisites (e.g. whether the audit must be finished) or point to the sibling tools that surface audit status/listings.

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