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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the one-time secret exposure ('SHOWN ONCE, store them now') and exactly what subsequent calls return. This is critical, non-obvious behavior for a credential-issuing tool that an agent would otherwise miss, and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the workflow position and the action, then packs the two highest-value facts — what gets returned and that it is unrecoverable — into a single dense sentence, with the REST mapping as a trailing parenthetical. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming both credentials and the already_issued state. The one gap is the pending case: it never says what the response looks like when the webhook is not yet verified, which matters for a polling tool an agent may call in a loop.

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%: job_id is documented as job_<ULID> from create_job and setup_token as the act_st_… value with the Bearer header alternative. The description only restates that setup_token drives the poll, adding no new syntax or format detail, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Poll verification state with the setup_token', and adds that the first successful call returns hmac_secret and management_token. This distinguishes it from get_job or verify_challenge by centering on credential collection, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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 precondition is explicit — 'The first call after the webhook is verified' — and repeat behavior is covered ('later calls say credentials: already_issued'), which tells an agent it is safe to poll. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the pre-verification case (e.g. verify_challenge), leaving that routing to inference.

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