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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the possible statuses (pending, connected, failed, expired) and that a connected handoff yields a data_source_id. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies the polling semantics.

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 action and resource, then the return value and downstream use. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 polling tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to use the result (pass to run_analysis). No gaps are apparent.

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 schema already describes handoff_id as 'The id returned by request_oauth_integration_url', and the description repeats this same linkage without adding new parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Poll' and identifies the resource as 'an OAuth handoff initiated by request_oauth_integration_url'. It also specifies the returned statuses and the data_source_id, distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_analysis_status or check_pricing.

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?

Clear context is provided: use this tool to poll an OAuth handoff initiated by request_oauth_integration_url, and it explains the next step of passing the data_source_id to run_analysis. It does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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