brand_audit_status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) already indicate safety. The description adds valuable context: polling nature, progress format, per-target statuses, and owner-scoping behavior.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists, the description covers polling, progress, per-target statuses, and scoping. No gaps for a status polling tool.

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 covers auditId with full description. The description adds context about owner-scoping, which gives semantic meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3, increased due to added value.

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 tool polls the status of an enqueued brand audit, listing returned data (status, progress, per-target statuses) and owner-scoping. It distinguishes from siblings like brand_audit_batch_start and brand_audit_get_report.

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 implies use after starting an audit via brand_audit_batch_start and notes owner-scoping behavior ('surfaces as notFound'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like brand_audit_single.

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