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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing the notReady polling response, the PDF sidecar metadata (pdfUrl and pdfPending), and the behavior difference with/without target. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise at four sentences, each delivering essential information: core purpose with modes, polling behavior, and PDF sidecar details. No redundancy or filler, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary behaviors (two modes, polling, PDF sidecar). It does not discuss error codes or timeouts, but given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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% with both parameters well-described. The description adds that omitting target yields an audit-level aggregate and setting it returns a per-target CheckResult, but this largely restates the schema's description for target. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 fetches the result JSON for a completed brand audit, distinguishes between two usage modes (with target for per-target CheckResult, without for audit-level aggregate), and differentiates from sibling tools like brand_audit_status by describing the actual data retrieval behavior.

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 implies usage context by mentioning polling behavior (returns notReady for in-flight audits) and the two modes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like brand_audit_status or brand_audit_batch_start, leaving the agent to infer the prerequisite.

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