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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are owner-scoped and auditIds owned by other principals surface as notFound, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

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: action first, return shape second, ownership caveat last. No filler, and the most important scoping constraint is not buried.

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, but the description fully compensates by naming the status values, progress format, per-target statuses, and the notFound edge case. For a simple two-parameter read tool, nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the auditId description already points to brand_audit_batch_start, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The tool description adds no syntax or format detail for auditId or format beyond what is already structured, which is the baseline case.

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 ('Poll the status of an enqueued brand audit') and enumerates exactly what is returned (audit-level status enum, progress 'N/M', per-target statuses), which inherently distinguishes it from brand_audit_get_report and brand_audit_batch_start.

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 phrase 'enqueued brand audit' clearly places it in the lifecycle after brand_audit_batch_start, giving an agent solid context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as brand_audit_get_report for completed audits, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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