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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description supplements this by revealing the polling loop and timeout behavior, which is valuable context. No contradiction exists with 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 extremely concise—two sentences—with the primary action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, containing no fluff or repetition.

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 core behavior (polling condition, timeout handling) and hints at the response via 'timed_out'. However, it does not describe the full response shape or provide guidance on parameter usage, leaving some gaps for a read-only polling tool.

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 60%, leaving session_id and timeout_seconds undocumented. The description does not explain any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing parameter details.

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's function: 'Poll until the intake leaves processing or the timeout expires.' This specifies a unique verb (poll), resource (intake), and condition, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_intake_state or submit_intake.

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 provides clear usage context by defining when to poll and how to handle timeouts ('If timed_out is true, call wait_for_next_action again'). However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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