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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description earns credit for adding asynchronous-job semantics: a status field that may not be "done" and a retry cadence. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, so it stops short of 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?

Front-loads the purpose and the bulk of the content is a useful enumeration of return fields rather than padding. The polling note is correctly placed last, though the content list is a single very long clause chain that could be tightened.

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, so the description carries the full burden of telling the agent what comes back — and it does so item by item, plus the async status/polling behavior. For a 2-param, no-output-schema tool this is complete enough to call correctly without further investigation.

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%: audit_id format and the summary/full enum are both fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description alludes to the failed/warning checks that the summary mode returns but never maps that to the detail parameter or adds format detail beyond 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Returns the result of a gizz.uz SEO audit") and then enumerates exactly what the payload contains — score/grade, category scores, failed checks, broken links, AI recommendations, queries, report links. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling start_audit (which initiates, this retrieves) without opening 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 polling guidance: if the audit is still running, status is not "done", so call again in a few seconds. That tells the agent the using-context (after start_audit, possibly repeatedly) but never explicitly names the alternative sibling or states when not to use this tool.

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