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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent, and the description is consistent with them while adding genuinely new behavior: each call advances the crawl by scanning the next pages, callers must loop until completion, and audits expire after one hour. It does not cover what happens on an expired or invalid audit_id, keeping it below the top mark.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the prerequisite and the polling loop, then the retention constraint. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the loop, status transition, and TTL. The remaining gap is failure handling for an expired or unknown audit_id, which an agent would otherwise have to discover at call time.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself already noting the id comes from start_site_audit. The description adds no further syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Continue a site audit'), names the originating tool start_site_audit, and makes the differencing clear versus the sibling that begins an audit. An agent can distinguish this polling tool from start_site_audit without opening either 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?

Gives clear context ('started with start_site_audit') and an explicit operational instruction to keep calling until status is complete, which routes the agent correctly among siblings. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or error/expiry conditions, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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