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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and only discloses one failure mode ('without it you get an error'). It says nothing about read-only semantics, permission requirements, or rate limits, and it frames key as mandatory when the schema actually marks only audit_id as required – an inconsistency the agent will trip over.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the parameter caveat. Almost no waste; only the vague 'you get an error' phrasing could be tightened.

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?

An output schema means return values need not be explained, but for a two-parameter tool the description leaves the required parameter undefined and misrepresents which parameter is optional. That omission is central to calling the tool correctly, not incidental.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does an excellent job on 'key' (report key from the report link, or the order id from the payment page) but never mentions audit_id, which is the one required parameter – leaving the agent with no idea what to put there.

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 states the resource and the retrieved aspect ('Status of a paid audit'), which is a recognizable read operation. It is implicitly distinguished from the sibling get_free_test_status by the word 'paid', but that contrast is never made explicit.

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?

It gives one hard usage constraint – supply the key or the call errors – which is genuinely actionable. It offers no guidance on when to use this versus get_free_test_status or the other siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. auth or ownership of the audit).

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