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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that repeated polling is expected and that the animation has terminal states (completes or fails). It also scopes the operation to 'private' animations, which clarifies access_token usage.

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 one concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action ('Poll') and packs the key behavior and scope into a compact statement.

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 simple two-parameter polling tool with a dedicated output schema, this description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit parameter guidance, but annotations and schema cover safety, idempotency, and required fields, and the description conveys the polling lifecycle clearly enough.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It implies animation_id is the polled resource and 'private' suggests access_token is needed, but it never explicitly maps either parameter to its role or format. Without this, the agent must infer parameter meaning from names alone.

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 a specific action ('Poll'), a clear resource ('one private animation'), and the termination condition ('until it completes or fails'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like create_scribe_animation, delete_scribe_animation, and get_scribe_animation_download.

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 polling framing clearly signals this is for checking the status of an animation after creation, not for creating, deleting, downloading, or managing the service. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the narrow scope and sibling names make the intended usage evident.

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