get_audio_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the paging behavior ('in bounded pages'), but says nothing about permissions, availability variance by job kind (left to the schema), or pagination termination.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, scope, and paging mode stated up front. Nothing to trim.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and all five parameters are fully documented in the schema. The only real gap is routing guidance relative to sibling read tools, which the description does not supply.

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 the schema already explains limit, offset, section enum, and source_index in detail. The description only gestures at paging via 'bounded pages' and does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a verified audio report') and adds the pagination and content scope ('notes and timing witnesses'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_audio_job (job metadata) and compare_audio/capture_audio (creation). It does not, however, name those siblings explicitly.

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 this is a follow-on read after a job exists, and the schema's job_id note ('Succeeded comparison/capture job ID from get_audio_job') reinforces the prerequisite, but the description itself states no when-to-use condition or alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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