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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful nuance beyond them: polling this tool has no side effect on the action's execution (it never runs, retries, or changes it), which is exactly what an agent needs to know before repeated calls. It does not cover error behavior for unknown or foreign action IDs.

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; the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the side-effect disclaimer. No filler, and every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter plus annotations are simple. What is present is accurate and sufficient to invoke the tool, though polling cadence or terminal-state expectations are unaddressed.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the schema only supplies a UUID pattern. The description compensates partially by adding ownership semantics ('an action this connection requested'), telling the agent the ID must belong to this connection, but adds nothing about format or lookup failure behavior.

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 and resource: returns the current state of an action. The word 'state' implicitly distinguishes it from xora_action_details (which presumably returns fuller detail) and xora_cancel_action, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Reads only; it never runs, retries or changes the action' gives a clear exclusion boundary, which is useful for a status-polling tool. However it never names the alternatives (xora_action_details, xora_cancel_action) or states the conditions under which each should be chosen, leaving routing to inference.

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