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

The annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the status report contains: running/complete state, elapsed time, and report availability.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently lists the return details.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only status tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 parameter is already described as the audit_id returned by ghost_audit_site. The description only restates that the audit is identified by audit_id, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('Ghost Audit') and the action ('status report'), and it states the key outputs: running/complete state, elapsed time, and report availability. It does not explicitly contrast with ghost_audit_report or ghost_audit_site, but 'status' is distinct enough to avoid serious confusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus ghost_audit_site or ghost_audit_report. The schema notes that audit_id comes from ghost_audit_site, but the description itself does not explain the workflow or any exclusions.

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