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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'owner-scoped' and 'asynchronous', which are genuinely useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose how unknown job IDs are handled or what the status response contains.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action, resource, and scope. There is no filler or repetition of schema information, making it immediately scannable.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple status-read operation and the annotations cover safety, but with no output schema the description does not explain return values or polling/completion semantics. An agent may not know what 'status' looks like or how to interpret its 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 covers 50% of parameters with descriptions; job_id is well-documented with a pattern and a note that it comes from batch_scan_start, and format has a self-explanatory enum. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the critical job_id parameter is already adequately explained in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('status of an asynchronous batch scan'), and an important scoping qualifier ('owner-scoped'). This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like brand_audit_status or discover_brand_domains_status 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling status tools, nor does it state prerequisites such as 'use after batch_scan_start'. Though 'batch scan' implies context, no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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