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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds value beyond that by revealing the specific data returned (status, pricing, payment state, delivery state) and by framing the tool as a polling mechanism, which is useful behavioral context for an agent.

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 short sentences contain all essential information: what the tool returns and when to use it. No filler or redundancy; information is front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter getter with strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers purpose, return fields, and usage timing. A minor gap is not distinguishing from get_audit_result, but the field list provides enough differentiation for most cases.

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 parameter 'id' is already well-described as the job id returned by create_audit with format brief_xxx. The description does not add further param-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a single resource ('one job'), and the exact fields returned (status, quoted tier/price, payment state, delivery state). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_audits (plural), create_audit (creation), and pay_audit (payment), and the title reinforces its purpose.

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 description explicitly says 'Poll after create_audit', giving clear temporal context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use get_audit_result instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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