Get audit status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return state space and 0-1 progression range that the schema does not. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, permissions, or polling/rate behavior for what is clearly a status-polling tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the state list and range are packed efficiently. Slightly terse given the tool's role, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully covers the returned status values and progression range. Remaining gaps (when to poll vs. wait, auth) are minor for a simple status check.

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% on the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the id format or origin, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('statut léger d'un audit') and enumerates the possible states and progression range. The word 'léger' hints at a lightweight alternative to get_audit, but no sibling is explicitly named, so differentiation is only implied.

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?

Usage is only implied: the PENDING/RUNNING/DONE/FAILED enum suggests polling, and 'léger' hints this is the cheap status check versus get_audit or audit_and_wait. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.

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