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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful fact beyond the schema — the access_token comes from creation — but says nothing about whether this is read-only, whether the report may be unavailable/partial when polled, or any rate limits.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the parameter note. 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 and no annotations, so the description should carry more of the return-value story than it does — it never says what a 'status' versus a 'final report' response looks like. For a simple two-param fetch tool it is adequate but leaves a clear 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 0% and both parameters are bare strings, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for access_token by stating it is 'returned at creation,' but gives no elaboration on audit_id beyond its name.

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 (fetch) and resource (the status or final mirror report of an audit session), which is distinct enough from sibling remirror_create_audit. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, but the resource itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'status or final report' hints at a lifecycle where status is polled before the final report exists, and the token requirement implies it follows remirror_create_audit. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named.

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