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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it usefully declares "Read-only", the polling cadence, and the shape of the payload. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown id, whether the call is expensive, or whether concurrent enrichments can be in flight, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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?

Front-loads the core fact (status/progress of a running or finished enrichment), then lists return fields, then the polling cadence and safety note. Every clause carries signal; nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so enumerating status, enrichment_total, enrichment_done, enrichment_progress (%), and done flag genuinely compensates. A one-parameter read tool needs little more, though noting behavior on invalid/finished ids would close the last gap.

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 `id` parameter is documented as a UUID in the schema, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 and resource (status/progress of a custom audience enrichment) and enumerates the concrete fields returned, which makes its scope unambiguous versus get_custom_audience or stop_custom_audience_enrichment. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 every 10–30 s" and "running (or finished)" give real, actionable guidance on when to call it and how often. It stops short of routing to alternatives (e.g., enrich_custom_audience to start, stop_custom_audience_enrichment to cancel), so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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