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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), lowering the bar. The description still adds genuine workflow context beyond them: the async 'poll this after run_site_audit' semantics imply the audit is produced asynchronously and this is the retrieval step, which is not carried by any structured field.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the return contents followed by the workflow cue. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 exists, so the description needn't restate return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains — what it returns, the polling workflow, and related tools — is fully covered for a single-parameter read tool.

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 single siteId parameter is already documented as coming from list_sites. The description adds no format, syntax, or default detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') plus the resource ('latest site audit') and enumerates what's inside it (score, issues by severity, prioritized fix plan). It also names the sibling it follows (run_site_audit), so an agent can distinguish it from related tools without opening the schema.

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?

'Poll this after run_site_audit' gives clear context for when to call it, and 'Related:' points at adjacent tools. However it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or explaining how it differs from check_site_readiness, so it isn't fully differentiated from all siblings.

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