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

Discloses behavior that annotations cannot convey: first result return triggers billing, re-query within the validity window is free, RESULT_EXPIRED is returned after resultExpiresAt, and which fields (resultAvailable, status, errorCode) should be inspected. This explains the otherwise puzzling readOnlyHint=false annotation for what looks like a read operation.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, state machine, billing, and return fields in a tight sequence. The only waste is the bracketed billing sentence at the end, which restates the billing/refund rule already stated earlier in the description.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it names the result container (result.employment), the status fields, the error codes, and the expiry behavior. An agent has everything needed to poll correctly and interpret the response.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its origin and the 32-hex-character format. The description restates that the transactionId comes from req_employment but adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: it queries approval status and employment/insurance verification results using a transactionId. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling req_employment by naming that tool as the source of the required transactionId, so an agent knows this is the poll/result side rather than the initiation side.

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 concrete state-dependent guidance: on AUTH_WAITING wait for phone approval, on COLLECTING retry shortly with the same ID, and after resultExpiresAt a new authentication is required. It does not explicitly state that req_employment must be called first as a prerequisite step, but the dependency is clear from the parameter origin.

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