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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the behavioral trait of polling (repeated calls expected) and indicates the response contains a status and result, which is useful context beyond the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It conveys the action, resource, and result type efficiently, earning its place without 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not mention return format, possible status values, error behavior, or how to use the result. Given the richness of annotations and the context of sibling tools, it is minimally sufficient but lacks operational details for an agent to fully anticipate the response.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description itself does not explain `case_id` or `command_id`. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning or context about their format, relationship, or how to obtain them, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a clear resource 'status and result of an intake-review command', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `get_case` or `submit_case_review`. It unambiguously states what the tool does and its scope.

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 usage after initiating a review command, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_case` or `get_intake_state`. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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