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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description earns credit for adding the async-polling behavior, the free-to-call fact, and the contents returned at each detail level. It stops short of describing rate limits or how long audit results persist, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the polling instruction, then the completion follow-up. No filler.

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?

With no output schema present, the description enumerates the return payload (progress and job_status at summary; visibility score, per-LLM coverage, competitive benchmarking, query results, recommendations at full), so an agent knows what to expect at both stages.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the semantic difference between the two enum values and when each applies, and by tracing audit_id back to run_brand_audit. That is real added meaning over 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the status/results of an AI Visibility Audit by audit_id') and implicitly distinguishes itself from run_brand_audit and list_brand_audits by dealing with a single existing audit. An agent can select it without opening the 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 an explicit two-phase workflow: poll with detail "summary" while the job runs, then re-call with detail "full" once job_status is "completed". It also notes the call is free, removing cost hesitation.

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