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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (audit-level status enum, 'N/M' progress, per-target statuses) and the owner-scoping rule that foreign auditIds surface as notFound.

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 purpose, then return shape, then the ownership edge case. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the payload and, more importantly, flags the non-obvious notFound behavior for audits owned by other principals. Only the relationship to brand_audit_get_report and any polling expectations are left unstated.

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?

Single auditId parameter with 100% schema description coverage that already states it comes from brand_audit_batch_start. The description adds no format, length, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Specific verb ('Poll') plus resource ('an enqueued brand audit') that makes the tool's job unambiguous, and the status/report split versus brand_audit_get_report is implied. It never explicitly names a sibling to route against, so it falls short of the top tier.

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?

'Enqueued' implies this is used after brand_audit_batch_start returns an auditId, so the usage context is inferable. There is no explicit statement of when to poll versus when to fetch the report or start a new audit, and no guidance on polling cadence or termination.

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