audit_status

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

Annotations declare it is not read-only, not open-world, and not destructive; the description adds that it advances a bounded checkpoint and reconciles with a native application, implying state mutation and repeated polling. It also notes that interrupted or changed crawl identity cannot be mixed into a snapshot, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences and front-loads the core action, then usage guidance, then return values. It is reasonably tight, though phrases like 'visible native application' are slightly verbose and could be plainer.

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 polling tool with no output schema and one undocumented parameter, the description explains the return values adequately but leaves the auditId semantics and stopping conditions unaddressed. It lacks integration guidance with control_audit or start_audit, leaving the agent to infer how it fits into the audit workflow.

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 single required parameter auditId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains its meaning or UUID format. The reference to 'durable job' and 'crawl identity' hints at the audit context but does not tell the agent what to supply as auditId.

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 uses dense, domain-specific language ('reconcile a durable job with the visible native application', 'advance a bounded checkpoint') that obscures the plain purpose of checking audit status. It does state what it returns (current stage, extracted count, required action), but does not clearly differentiate itself from siblings like control_audit or start_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 gives a clear polling directive: 'Continue calling while work progresses.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool again, though it stops short of specifying when to stop or naming alternative tools for different scenarios.

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