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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond that by enumerating the terminal and intermediate states, including the notable 'failed (refunded)' outcome, which tells the agent what to expect and what a failure implies. It stops short of saying whether statuses transition and how often to poll.

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 short sentence with the key information (the state list) placed up front and nothing wasted. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete statement, and the parenthetical '(refunded)' is slightly ambiguous, but the sizing is right.

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 a 100% covered single-parameter schema, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is returned and the value space. The main omission is whether the status is volatile and should be re-polled, which an agent calling a job-status tool would benefit from knowing.

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% for the single audit_id parameter, and the schema itself explains that the id comes from submit_audit or list_audits. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so 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?

Identifies the resource (an audit) and the exact information returned (its status), and enumerates the possible values, which tells an agent precisely what this tool yields. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_audit_report, so the agent must infer that one returns a status and the other a full report.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_audit_report, quote_audit, or submit_audit, and no guidance on polling/re-checking a status that may change. The only hint of usage lives in the schema's audit_id description referencing submit_audit/list_audits, which is structured data rather than description text.

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