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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful detail about the return payload (status, score, report path) but does not explain status values, polling behavior, or prerequisites for the audit_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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the operation and its return fields with no wasted words.

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 read-only status tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately states what is returned. However, it omits lifecycle context such as whether this should be polled after start_mobile_audit or how it relates to evidence and report-parsing siblings.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline case for a 3.

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') and resource ('Mobile Readiness Audit') and names the returned fields (status, score, report path). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_mobile_audit_evidence or list_mobile_audits, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mobile_audit_evidence, parse_mobile_audit_report, or list_mobile_audits. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'status'.

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