Générer l'audit complet

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: collection takes minutes and the report goes from pending to ready. This goes beyond structured fields and accurately sets expectations for an asynchronous operation.

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 well-structured sentence with the core action, key scope, async behavior, and endpoint all included. Every clause earns its place and the important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the behavior and lifecycle well. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state how to poll or retrieve the completed report, though sibling tools make that reasonably inferable.

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 coverage is 100%, with siteId already described as an encoded site ID (hashid). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 action ('Crée un rapport') and resource (audit report with all available sections), clearly distinguishing it from sibling read tools like getAuditReport and listAuditReports. The phrase 'toutes les sections disponibles' signals it is the full-audit creation entry point.

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 when to use it: when a complete audit report is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the pending-to-ready status hints that follow-up retrieval will be required. More explicit routing to getAuditReport or listAuditReports would strengthen this dimension.

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