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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add useful behavioral substance by describing the shape of progress reporting (stage, counts, per-engine, ETA). It omits any polling/refresh guidance, which is the main remaining behavioral gap for a status tool.

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. The main clause front-loads the resource, the middle clause lists return content, and the final sentence carries the routing instruction.

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 no output schema, the description has to convey what comes back, and it does so at a functional level: stage, counts in/expected, per-engine breakdown, and completion estimate. It stops short of naming concrete stage values or a finish-time format, but an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result.

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 single brand_id parameter is fully documented there, including the omission case for single-brand workspaces. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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+resource (progress of a brand's first scan) and enumerates exactly what the caller learns: stage, answers in vs. expected, per engine, and finish estimate. It also scopes itself to the post-add_brand scan, which separates it from get_visibility and the other read siblings.

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 places the tool in a workflow ("a brand's first scan after add_brand") and hands off the next step with a condition: "Once complete, use get_visibility for the results." Both when-to-use and the alternative are stated rather than inferred.

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