getSiteAuditStatus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context: it returns progress counters and summary scores after audit finishes, which is beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence defines purpose, second explains polling pattern, third differentiates tools. No wasted words, all sentences earn their place.

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 is simple (single parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary context: polling usage, statuses, timing, and relation to sibling tools. No gaps.

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?

Only one parameter (auditId) with schema description 'The audit ID returned by startSiteAudit.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 description clearly states the tool polls the status of a running site audit and explicitly lists possible statuses (QUEUED, CRAWLING, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like getSiteAuditReport by specifying this is for progress polling.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: call every 5-10 seconds after startSiteAudit until COMPLETE, then switch to getSiteAuditReport. Also includes a 'Pick the right tool' section comparing with getSiteAuditReport.

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