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

Discloses billing on first result return, free re-queries within validity, the RESULT_EXPIRED terminal state, and the key status fields to check — well beyond the annotations. The annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) are consistent with a re-runnable but billed call, and the description explains why.

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?

Front-loads the retrieve action, then polling behavior, then billing and expiry. The billing point is repeated in the trailing bracketed sentence, which is mild redundancy but the content is otherwise dense and useful.

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 fully carries the return contract: resultAvailable, status, errorCode, result.npsCareerHistory, and resultExpiresAt/RESULT_EXPIRED. Nothing an agent needs to interpret a response 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself already documents that transactionId comes from the req_nps_career_history response (with format). The description only restates this source relationship, adding little beyond the structured field.

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 (retrieves approval status and NPS career-history result) and explicitly ties itself to the sibling prerequisite req_nps_career_history via its transactionId. An agent can distinguish this result-fetch tool from the request tool without opening either 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?

Gives explicit polling rules: wait on AUTH_WAITING (phone approval), retry with the same ID on COLLECTING, and re-authorize after physical expiry. It also states the prerequisite relationship with req_nps_career_history and the free/billed conditions, leaving little to inference.

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