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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The mention of 'status' usefully signals that results may be incomplete, but the description doesn't say how a pending/running audit is represented or whether the call should be retried.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no wasted clauses. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter lookup.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description would need to explain the return shape ('status and results' is vague) and any async polling behavior for long-running audits. It does neither, so an agent can call it but cannot fully anticipate what comes back.

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 audit_id parameter is documented there as coming from run_seo_audit. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (fetch) and resource (status and results of a prior audit) keyed by audit_id, and no sibling tool performs this retrieval role. It stops short of naming run_seo_audit as the producer of the id, leaving that linkage implicit.

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?

'Previously run audit' implies the tool is used after run_seo_audit, but the description never states that prerequisite explicitly or rules out any alternative. No guidance on repeated polling when an audit is still in progress.

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