check_aeo_audit_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's polling behavior, including conditions for free vs. paid audits and handling of pending states. However, it doesn't mention error handling, timeout limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and critical usage guidelines. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's polling complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well by explaining the polling logic and conditions. However, it doesn't describe what the status response looks like or potential error states, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret results. The completeness is good but not perfect for a 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'auditId' well-documented in the schema as 'The audit ID returned from run_aeo_audit'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'check' and resource 'status of an AEO audit', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on audit status rather than content suite operations (like generate_aeo_content_suite) or running audits (run_aeo_audit).

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Poll until free_preview_ready (free) or is_complete at full report (paid). If paid_pipeline_pending is true, keep polling.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (for polling audit status) and provides specific conditions for continuing polling, which is crucial for understanding its role versus alternatives.

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