brand_audit_get_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining 'notReady' for in-flight audits, 'pdfPending' for completed targets without PDF, and conditions for signed PDF URLs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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?

Given two parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers return types, polling behavior, and metadata conditions. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's usage and outcomes.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating that omitting target returns audit-level aggregate and setting target returns per-target CheckResult, and that auditId comes from brand_audit_batch_start. This goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it fetches result JSON for a completed brand audit, and distinguishes behavior with/without the target parameter (per-target vs aggregate). It also describes return states (notReady, pdfPending). This differentiates it from sibling tools like brand_audit_status and check_* tools.

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 clear context on when to use each variant (with/without target) and hints at polling behavior with 'notReady'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like brand_audit_status or provide exclusion criteria.

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