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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the tool is pollable, that the key is returned exactly once, that the call is free/no-key-needed, and that the result must be used as a Bearer token via reconnecting the MCP client.

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 tight sentences, with the core polling behavior front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds operational value: what to expect, how to use the result, and whether authentication is needed.

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?

The description covers the polling statuses, one-time key delivery, and downstream Bearer-token usage, which is substantial given there is no output schema or annotations. It is slightly incomplete only in not identifying where request_id and claim_secret come from, but the workflow context mostly compensates for that.

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 needs to explain request_id and claim_secret. It only implies their existence through the polling workflow and never explicitly maps these parameters to their source or roles. This is a meaningful gap for an agent choosing what values to pass.

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?

States a specific action (poll after request_api_key) with a clear resource (the API key claim), and explains the status progression from 'pending' to 'approved'. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like request_api_key and the many query_* tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this after request_api_key and describes the expected polling lifecycle. It also tells the agent how to use the returned key in later requests, which is exactly the kind of workflow guidance needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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