Read a site audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'free to read' and describes that it polls until finished, implying possible non-immediate response. It also clarifies that it returns an issue list grouped by severity with affected URLs, which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction with 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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and provides actionable guidance without fluff.

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 a simple tool (1 param, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: what it does, when to use it (after site_audit_start), what the result looks like, and how to proceed. Annotations cover behavioral safety, and the description adds polling and workflow context.

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?

The single parameter audit_id is fully described in the schema ('Audit id from site_audit_start') and the description also references site_audit_start, reinforcing its source. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to add much. It meets the baseline of 3.

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 the tool polls an audit started with site_audit_start and returns the issue list grouped by severity with affected URLs. It explicitly connects to the sibling tool site_audit_start, distinguishing its purpose and scope.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use (after site_audit_start) and suggests a workflow ('work through it top-down and re-run after fixes'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, but it is clear enough.

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