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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. Beyond that it adds real behavioral value: the polling cadence and the mapping of next-step outcomes to the agent's expected action, which annotations cannot express.

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 the returned fields before the parenthetical value lists and the polling instruction. The enum lists are dense but each value earns its place by letting the agent branch on proximo_passo without a follow-up call.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating both state families. The trailing ellipsis after 'bloqueada…' signals the list is non-exhaustive, leaving the agent to handle unknown states unguided, which is the only real gap for a zero-parameter status tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly adds no parameter prose, keeping the focus on the return semantics instead.

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 states precisely what is returned: the credential state and the last connection attempt, naming both fields (estado, proximo_passo). It never names a verb or a sibling, so an agent must infer that this is a read-only poll rather than a configuration action like configurar_credencial, but the enumerated return values make the scope unambiguous.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: poll every few seconds while the state remains 'aguardar', which tells the agent both cadence and the loop termination condition. It does not state when to prefer configurar_credencial instead, or what to do once proximo_passo leaves 'aguardar', so alternatives are left implicit.

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