Read one audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious async behavior that each URL's `analysis` stays null until that URL's own check completes, i.e. partial results are expected. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, though rate limits or failure modes aren't mentioned.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what the call returns and then the polling condition; every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, yet the description still orients the agent on shape (URLs, nine signals) and on the asynchronous completion semantics. For a single-parameter read tool this is complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single auditId parameter and the schema states it is the id 'as create_audit reports it'. The description adds no further syntax or format detail beyond that baseline, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One audit in full') and enumerates what is returned: every audited URL plus nine content signals. It is clearly differentiated from create_audit (the producer) and get_audit_usage (quota) among the siblings.

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?

Gives explicit lifecycle guidance — call after create_audit and keep calling until `status` is no longer `pending` — which is exactly the polling contract an agent needs. It stops short of naming/contrasting sibling readers such as get_audit_usage, so it is strong context rather than full alternative routing.

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