Collecter une section d'audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile with no contradiction. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond annotations by disclosing that the section is computed at call time on up-to-date data rather than served from cache, and by enumerating the response composition. It does not address computation cost or potential staleness, which is a minor gap.

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 compact at two sentences and front-loads the purpose before the content enumeration and endpoint. The leading phrase repeats the title verb ('Collecter une section d'audit') creating slight redundancy, but every other element — the live-computation behavior, the response breakdown, and the REST endpoint — 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?

For a 7-parameter computation tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating what the response contains and noting the live recalculation. Safety is fully covered by rich annotations and parameter semantics by the high-coverage schema. Missing are details on how the calculation behaves (cost, rate limits, freshness guarantees) and clearer routing among the audit siblings, but these are moderate, not crippling, gaps.

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 high (86%), so the schema already documents bloc, data, page, limit, detail, and siteId, keeping the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level explanations, but 'cle' gains meaning from the endpoint path (GET /sites/{siteId}/audit/sections/{cle}), clarifying it as the section key and compensating for the one undocumented parameter.

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 and resource ('Collecter une section d'audit — Calcule la section maintenant') with a concrete enumeration of the computed content: summary, indicators, findings, prioritized actions (1 = urgent), and detailed data. The live-calculation aspect distinguishes it from the sibling listAuditSections and getAuditReport, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many audit-related siblings (listAuditSections, listAuditReports, getAuditReport, listAuditActions). The required 'cle' parameter and endpoint path imply a single-section use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer.

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