Lister les rapports d'audit

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond annotations: reports are sorted from newest to oldest and include preview/PDF links. It does not contradict annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, ordering, and return content. The opening phrase 'Lister les rapports d'audit' is somewhat redundant with the tool name/title, preventing a 5.

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 simple, one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent gets back (ordered reports with links). It does not mention pagination or filtering, but these are not clearly required for basic use.

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% and the single siteId parameter is already described as an encoded hashid. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the endpoint template, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: list audit reports for a site, ordered newest to oldest, with preview and PDF links. It is distinct from sibling tools like listAuditSections, listAuditActions, and getAuditReport by identifying 'rapports' as the target resource.

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 gives clear context: this is for listing all audit reports for a given site, useful before drilling into a single report. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use case is evident.

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