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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is cheap, returns only specific fields with conditional presence, and is intended for repeated polling. It does not explicitly state read-only or lack of side effects, but 'check' and 'status' strongly imply non-mutation. A small explicit safety note would make it fully transparent.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, required parameter and source, response fields with conditions, and usage guidance versus get_audit. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 single-parameter status polling tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter source, response field behavior with conditions, and alternative tool guidance. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without additional lookups.

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 schema has no description for audit_id (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that audit_id is required and is the id returned by start_audit or list_audits, giving essential provenance. This uniquely identifies the parameter's meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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's action ('Check the progress of an audit') and resource, then explicitly contrasts it with get_audit, which returns much more detail. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 explicitly says this is the tool to call repeatedly while waiting, and that get_audit is better for reading finished results. It also specifies where to obtain audit_id (from start_audit or list_audits), providing clear when-to-use and parameter sourcing guidance.

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