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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing that this is a polling operation with an expected interval and a terminating status. It does not say what happens on non-'done' terminal states or how long to keep polling.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the operational instruction. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 polling tool whose return values are covered by an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, cadence, and terminal state. The remaining gap is handling of error or non-'done' outcomes, and the session_id source is only implied.

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 (session_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly conveys that session_id comes from the send_message call, but never names or describes the parameter itself, leaving the value's origin to inference.

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 and resource ('collect the answer') and ties it to the sibling tool send_message, so an agent can distinguish it from send_message, propose_change, or query_campaign_performance without opening any schema.

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 gives the precise triggering condition (a send_message call that returned status='working') and the polling cadence (~30s) plus the terminal condition ('done'). It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of failure/timeout statuses, so it falls short of a 5.

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