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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the billing model (charged on first result return, free re-query within the validity period), the state machine (AUTH_WAITING/COLLECTING/RESULT_EXPIRED), the fields to check (resultAvailable, status, errorCode), and where the payload lives (result.drivingLicense). This explains why readOnlyHint=false despite the 'get' framing, so there is no contradiction.

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-loaded with purpose and then state handling, all in a compact block. The trailing bracketed clause restates the billing/re-query rule already stated earlier, a minor redundancy that keeps it just short of a 5.

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 status states, the billing conditions, the response fields, the payload location, and the expiry behavior. Nothing an agent needs to poll and interpret this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already states that transactionId comes from the req_driving_license response. The description repeats that linkage but adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (retrieve approval status and driver's license result) and explicitly anchors it to the sibling req_driving_license as the source of the transactionId. An agent can tell this is the polling/result-retrieval counterpart to 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 state-dependent instructions: wait for mobile approval on AUTH_WAITING, re-query with the same ID shortly on COLLECTING, and start a new authentication request after RESULT_EXPIRED. The entry condition (obtain transactionId from req_driving_license) and the free re-query window are both named, 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.