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

Discloses the one non-obvious trait annotations cannot express: api_key is returned exactly once, on the first check after human approval, and must be saved and reused as api_key for the job tools. This also explains why readOnlyHint=false despite the tool being a poll — the one-shot secret reveal is a real side effect.

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 sentences, zero redundancy: cadence first, then the returnable statuses, then the one-time secret handoff with the exact key prefix. The riskiest fact (save the key once) is stated plainly rather than buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does: it enumerates all five status values and describes the api_key payload with its prefix. Nothing an agent needs to call and act on the result 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?

The single request_id parameter is fully described in the schema, including the areq_ pattern and its origin. The description references the same origin but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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 ('Poll a request_access request') and makes clear it is the follow-up counterpart to request_access, not the creation call. An agent can distinguish it from request_access and from the get_* siblings without opening any 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 an explicit polling cadence ('every 5 seconds') and implies the prerequisite that a request_access call has already happened. It does not spell out when to stop polling or what to do on denial/expiry, but the terminal statuses it enumerates make the stopping condition inferable.

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