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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already indicate no side effects, and the description adds transparency about the returned data (status, file size, canvas dimensions, downloads used, expiry). It does not contradict the annotations and gives a clear picture of the tool's behavior.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then compactly lists the returned fields. There is no redundant or extraneous wording.

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 read-only polling tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what statuses to expect and what data is returned, and the sibling list provides the related create_psd_export context.

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 fully documents the single verification_id parameter, including its UUID type and origin, so the description does not need to add much. The tool description itself adds no further parameter detail, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Poll the state') and a specific resource ('a verification's PSD export'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_psd_export and get_verification. It also lists the key output fields, so an agent knows exactly what this tool provides.

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 this should be used after requesting an export, but the description does not explicitly mention create_psd_export or state when to prefer this over get_verification. 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.