getSiteAuditReport

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds the crucial constraint that audit must be COMPLETE, which is not in annotations. It also lists report contents, providing additional context beyond safety profile.

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 well-structured with bullet points and a decision table. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly verbose but every section adds value; could be trimmed slightly but still effective.

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 presence of output schema, annotations, and sibling tools, the description is fully complete. It enumerates report contents, specifies prerequisites, and provides clear usage guidance, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the auditId parameter and its required status, but this is already documented in the schema. No additional parameter details beyond schema are provided.

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 specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'full structured report for a completed site audit'. It distinguishes from siblings like getSiteAuditStatus and previewPageAudit.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (audit must be COMPLETE) and names the alternative tool getSiteAuditStatus for checking progress. The 'Pick the right tool' section clearly differentiates when to use each sibling.

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