brand_audit_get_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral traits: polling returns notReady, pdfUrl for rendered PDF, pdfPending if still rendering. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, each adding essential information. No redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action. Efficient and well-structured.

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 the output schema exists, the description covers the polling behavior, sidecar handling, and conditional return details. It is complete for a fetch operation with tier-2 polling and PDF metadata.

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 schema already describes each parameter. The description clarifies the effect of setting 'target' versus omitting it, but this is partially redundant with the schema's description ('Omit for audit-level aggregate'). Small addition of 'CheckResult' return shape.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'result JSON for a completed brand audit'. It distinguishes two modes (with/without target) and mentions polling for in-flight audits. This differentiates it from sibling tools like brand_audit_status or brand_audit_batch_start.

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 indicates when to use the tool (fetch results of a completed audit) and describes the behavior when polling an in-flight audit (returns notReady). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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