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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that this is a polling operation keyed by an access token, but it says nothing about rate limits, task lifecycle states, or what happens if the token is missing/expired.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and lookup key front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and both params are at least named. However, with 0% schema coverage the description leaves the access_token's role ambiguous (it is not a required field) and omits polling cadence/state guidance, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 carries the burden: it identifies both parameters conceptually (opaque ID and access token) but adds no format, token-purpose, or expiry detail beyond the pattern/minLength constraints visible in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('expert research task'), and the phrase 'by opaque ID and access token' clarifies the lookup mechanism. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like continue_expert_task or cancel_expert_task, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'Poll' implies a repeated status-retrieval pattern, which hints at when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over continue_expert_task or cancel_expert_task, nor any stated prerequisites.

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