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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral details: no credits consumed, action scope requirement, possible states, and returned fields. It also warns about 'blocked' state and reconciliation, which is valuable beyond 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 dense but front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence carries information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating states from usage). It's appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 simple schema (one parameter), annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: when to call, what states to expect, return fields, and caveats. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of polling interval or timeout behavior.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds that it's an operation_id returned when a task was queued and to use it instead of case/packet/quote IDs, which adds 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('an asynchronous operation by operation_id'), and clearly distinguishes it from task tools ('Use after any task tool'). The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it ('Use after any task tool') and conditions like 'blocked submission_reconciliation_required must be reconciled before retry.' It also clarifies that a succeeded submit doesn't prove removal, which is a critical usage nuance.

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