brand_audit_status

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies return types (audit-level status, progress 'N/M', per-target statuses) and owner-scoping behavior (non-owned auditIds surface as notFound). Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), and the description enriches 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?

Two sentences, no redundant information, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence serves a purpose: first states what it does and returns, second specifies scope constraints. Extremely efficient.

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 (implied by context signals), the description covers the necessary behavioral aspects (status, progress, per-target, ownership) and the parameter is fully documented in schema. The annotations further assure safety. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameter documentation, including provenance (auditId returned by brand_audit_batch_start). The description reinforces this context but does not add new semantic details beyond what is already in the schema. The value added is acknowledging the dependency, so above baseline 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 clearly states the tool polls status of an enqueued brand audit, specifying the verb 'Poll' and the resource 'status of an enqueued brand audit'. It distinguishes from siblings like brand_audit_batch_start (starts audits) and brand_audit_get_report (full report), making the tool's unique role clear.

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 usage after starting a batch audit (auditId from brand_audit_batch_start) and includes owner-scoping constraints. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use brand_audit_get_report instead) or provide direct when-to-use guidance.

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