brand_audit_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the owner-scoping edge case ('auditIds owned by other principals surface as notFound') and previewing the return shape (audit status, 'N/M' progress, per-target statuses). 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?

Two tightly-written sentences with every clause earning its place. The first sentence front-loads the verb and purpose; the second packs return-shape details and a critical scoping edge case into a single clause. Zero fluff or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter polling tool with an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, async lifecycle, return shape, and the ownership-related notFound edge case. Given the available schema context and annotations, there are no material gaps that would prevent an agent from using this tool correctly.

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?

Description stays at the schema's 100% coverage level. The auditId parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Audit ID returned by brand_audit_batch_start'), with the description adding only the word 'enqueued' as extra context. Schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening verb-noun pair 'Poll the status of an enqueued brand audit' precisely defines the operation with a specific verb (poll) and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like brand_audit_single, brand_audit_batch_start, and brand_audit_get_report, making the tool's role in the async workflow unambiguous.

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 establishes clear context: 'Poll the status of an enqueued brand audit' implies usage after brand_audit_batch_start initiates work, and the 'queued | running | completed | failed' state machine signals when it applies. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. brand_audit_get_report).

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