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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: an audit appears only after a worker picks it up, normally within seconds, which sets expectations for polling. It does not cover edge cases like unknown/expired jobIds or what an empty call returns, so it falls 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, then the calling patterns, then the timing caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 and strong annotations, the description covers nearly everything. The one gap: neither parameter is required, yet the description never says what happens if both are omitted or if both are supplied, which is a real ambiguity for an 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% and the schema already documents the bulk-enum pitfall thoroughly. The description still adds meaning by listing the upstream tools that produce a jobId, which the schema only summarizes as 'From the tool that queued the work.'

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 — progress of background work (SEO audits, link scans, bulk jobs) — and enumerates the job types covered. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like get_indexing_status or run_audit.

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 gives the two calling modes (jobId from run_audit/run_link_scan/apply_link_titles/fix_broken_links, or kind for latest run) and names the alternative behavior it replaces: 'Call this instead of guessing whether queued work has finished.' That is clear when-to-use guidance with named sibling tools.

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