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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by enumerating the possible states (being checked, free, credit cost, running, done, failed), which tells the agent what outcomes to expect. It omits auth/rate-limit details, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the pre-confirmation states front-loaded and the post-confirmation states following. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully carries the enumeration of return states, which is the key thing an agent needs. It does not cover error or invalid-audit_id behavior, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains audit_id. The description only reinforces that it comes from request_post_fix, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (reports) and resource (post fix status) and anchors it to the exact workflow that produces the audit_id. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming request_post_fix and confirm_post_fix, so an agent can place it in the lifecycle without opening the schema.

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 clearly signals the two moments to call it: after request_post_fix (pre-confirmation checking/free/cost) and after confirm_post_fix (running/done/failed). No explicit exclusions or 'do not use' conditions are given, but the context is unambiguous.

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