getSiteAuditStatus

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context, which it does: return statuses, progress counters, summary scores appearing after completion, and a polling cadence. There is no contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by precise usage instructions and a compact disambiguation list. Every sentence earns its place and no redundant phrasing is present.

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?

This tool has a single well-documented parameter, an output schema, and safety-relevant annotations. The description supplies the remaining operational details needed to use it correctly: polling interval, termination condition, status values, and the follow-up tool to call.

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 coverage is 100% and the auditId parameter is already described as 'The audit ID returned by startSiteAudit.' The description reinforces that the ID comes from startSiteAudit, but adds no substantive new meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Poll') and resource ('status of a running site audit'), enumerates the exact status values returned, and distinguishes itself from getSiteAuditReport and startSiteAudit. An agent can immediately know what this tool does and how it differs from its 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?

Explicitly instructs when to call it ('repeatedly every 10–15 seconds after startSiteAudit'), when to stop ('until status is COMPLETE'), and which tool to use next ('then call getSiteAuditReport'). The 'Pick the right tool' section further clarifies the boundary between status polling and report retrieval.

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