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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: the resultState lifecycle (pending, in_progress, ready) and the pollAfterSeconds field that only appears before readiness, which tells the agent how to drive a polling loop.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the conditional polling field. No filler and every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 burden of describing returns and does so adequately by naming resultState values, the answerer/outcome/summary fields, and pollAfterSeconds. It is slightly thin on how much detail differs from get_call and whether results persist, but it is sufficient to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 callId parameter is already documented as coming from place_call or list_calls. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, 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?

The description clearly identifies this as a status/result retrieval for a call placed via OsmO, and enumerates the concrete fields returned (resultState, who answered, outcome, summary). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_call, which an agent could reasonably confuse with it, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of pollAfterSeconds hints at a polling loop until resultState becomes 'ready', which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_call or list_recent_calls, and no guidance on polling frequency limits or what to do on terminal states.

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