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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that the response varies by run state (progress vs. findings), but it says nothing about polling frequency, retention, or what happens for an unknown run_id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the primary action comes first and the state-dependent return is expressed compactly in the trailing clause.

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 one-parameter read-only polling tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it is a retrieval call tied to a previously started run and returns either progress or findings. The only missing piece is how the run_id is sourced and any polling guidance.

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 0% for the single run_id parameter, so the schema supplies only the name and type. The description indirectly characterizes run_id as identifying a run 'you started', which gives it meaning as a handle from a previous launch, but it never explains the parameter or where to obtain the value.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the result of an audit or re-check'), and it distinguishes retrieval from the starting actions implied by siblings run_audit and recheck. It could be sharper by explicitly naming those siblings, but an agent can still tell what it fetches.

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?

The phrase 'you started' establishes the prerequisite—this is a follow-up call after launching an audit or re-check—and it clarifies the two usage states (polling while running vs. collecting results when complete). It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives explicitly.

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