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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the pending/completed state machine, the need to poll repeatedly, and what is returned when finished. It stops short of disclosing failure/expired states or polling cadence/timeout limits, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the polling rule then the completion outcome. No filler; every sentence carries operational content.

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 correctly explains the return value (account_id on completion), covering the main gap. It omits what happens on failure/expiry statuses, which would matter for a polling loop, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents poll_token and its origin. The description repeats the token's provenance but adds no format or validity details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (poll) and resource (status of an OAuth connect flow) and ties it directly to the sibling tools that create the flow (connect_account, reauth_account). An agent can distinguish this from other account tools without opening a 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?

Explicitly states when to call it (after connect_account/reauth_account), how to drive the polling loop ('keep polling while status is pending'), and the terminal condition that ends iteration. This is actionable routing guidance, not inference.

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