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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: it blocks briefly server-side, returns as soon as operator acts, and returns 'pending' if not yet decided. This aligns with and enhances the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations.

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, each adding essential information: purpose, usage instruction, and behavioral details. No redundant words; front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage trigger, return behavior, and authentication requirements.

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 only parameter approvalId is documented in the input schema with description referencing axiorank_score_tool_call. The tool description also mentions that the ID comes from that call, but adds no further semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool polls the verdict of a held tool call, specifying the action (poll), resource (held tool call), and the source of the approvalId. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings as it references axiorank_score_tool_call which initiates the hold.

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 description indicates when to use it (after axiorank_score_tool_call returns a hold decision) and what to do if pending (call again). It also mentions required scope and same agent key, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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