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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful context that the operation returns state and results, and that polling it is free, but it does not explain return structure, completion semantics, or potential errors.

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 front-loaded, stating the core purpose before the cost note. It wastes no words, though it is so terse that it sacrifices useful detail.

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 simple one-parameter polling tool with strong annotations, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource, the action, and the cost. However, with no output schema, it does not specify what 'state and results' look like, nor does it connect the `id` parameter to operation provenance from create_* tools.

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 0%: the single required `id` parameter has only length constraints and no semantic explanation. The description does not explicitly state that `id` is the operation identifier or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as polling an operation's state and results, with a specific verb and resource. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like check_status or get_events, which could also involve status 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?

The word 'poll' implies it is for checking ongoing operations, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. Sibling tools like check_status are not addressed, leaving selection ambiguous.

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