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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the baseline is low, but the description adds real behavior: the returned stage, per-candidate is_proven and has_reply_fetch flags, a job-level needs_session_bootstrap, the guarantee that no credential value is ever returned, and the required read scope. These go beyond annotations and beyond what an agent could infer.

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?

Four sentences, all information-bearing, with the core action (poll) and prerequisite front-loaded and the security/scope caveats placed last. Slightly dense and packs return-field names mid-sentence, keeping it just short of maximally clean.

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 single-parameter polling tool with an output schema, the description covers the workflow entry, exit (confirmation), return semantics in brief, security expectations, and auth scope. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is one parameter (discovery_token) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema itself provides no semantics. The description implies the token comes from the create_target(url=…) call and is reused when confirming, which gives partial meaning, but never states format, lifetime, or whether an expired token errors.

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 a specific resource (the discovery job started by create_target(url=…)), plus what it returns (stage, candidate agent calls). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_target_profile or get_assessment_status because it names the originating call that creates the job.

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?

Gives the precondition that a create_target(url=…) call must have started the job, and spells out the follow-up action (call create_target with discovery_token and optional 'candidate' index). It does not say when not to use it or how to handle a job that never completes / is cancelled, but the routing to the next tool is explicit.

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