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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied. The description adds substantially more: the 20-second wait, the full set of statuses, the one-time token behavior, and the security constraint never to expose the token to the person or put it in an app.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary behavior, then enumerates statuses, then explains token handling and security. Every sentence carries operational value, and there is no redundant wording.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and next steps; it does so completely with statuses, token, kind, and follow-up calls. Combined with full schema coverage for pollKey and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this 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?

The single pollKey parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('waits... answers') and resource (approval request status) and names the sibling tools that initiate the request. An agent can distinguish this polling tool from connect/create_app/update_app without opening the 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?

It states when to use it (after create_app, update_app, or connect) and gives explicit next actions for every returned status: repeat for pending, wait then repeat for slow_down, and use the token with create_app/update_app on approved. No explicit when-not condition is stated, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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