Get Audit Export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying tenant-scoping and gateway operator view. No behavioral traits like job_id format or pagination are disclosed, but the read-only nature is clear and sufficient for this simple tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, though it could be slightly clearer about 'detail' meaning.

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 (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose and scope. Return values are implied by 'detail' and covered by the output schema, so no further info is critically 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain job_id or issue_download. The meaning of these parameters is left to inference, which is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'compliance audit export job detail', with scoping ('tenant-scoped') and viewpoint ('gateway operator view'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like paybond_list_audit_exports.

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 implies use for fetching a single job detail, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor exclusions or conditions. Context from sibling names suggests differentiation, but the text itself lacks usage guidelines.

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