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

readOnlyHint is already covered by annotations, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the call blocks up to ~25s, returns immediately on any change, and is meant to be re-invoked to continue waiting. That's a non-obvious polling contract an agent needs. It stops short of describing the returned payload structure in detail.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and then the blocking semantics. No filler and no redundancy in phrasing.

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?

For a read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent the shape of the result and the blocking contract, which is most of what's needed to call it correctly. The unexplained requestId parameter keeps it from being complete.

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 only 50%: requestId has no description anywhere, and the description does not explain what it identifies or where it comes from. The wait explanation largely restates the schema's own description and maximum, adding only the 'call again' loop pattern. With half the parameters undocumented, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 names the specific resource being returned: status, verdict (approvals), and each recipient's answer. This is clearly a read/poll operation, distinguishable from mutating siblings like closeRequest or updateRequest. It does not explicitly contrast with listRequests or previewRequest, so a 4 rather than 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?

The long-poll pattern is spelled out ('call again to keep waiting'), which implies usage for waiting on responses. However, it never states when to prefer this over listRequests or previewRequest, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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