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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds the polling cadence, the retry_after_seconds/stale semantics, and the meaning of failure_classification values. It stops short of describing pagination or rate limits beyond 'free and safe to repeat', but the state machine disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

Dense but well-organized: status handling first, then completed-result fields, then terminal states. Each sentence carries information, though the enumeration of result fields is long and could be trimmed since an output schema exists.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still supplies the semantic meaning of status values, failure_classification categories, and field intent, which schema types alone cannot convey. An agent has everything needed to poll correctly and interpret the outcome.

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 schema already states the parameter accepts the audit_id or the report URL, so the description's parenthetical merely restates it. No additional format or syntax detail is added, 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: retrieving the status and eventual result of an audit started by test_conversion, and explicitly frames it as the polling counterpart to that sibling. An agent can distinguish it from test_conversion without reading 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 concrete when-to-use and what-to-do-next guidance: call after test_conversion, wait retry_after_seconds on 'pending', restart if stale is true, and that 'failed' means no report. Exclusions and state transitions are spelled out rather than implied.

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