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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that, describing a polling/read operation. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the API key requirement and the fallback behavior when no key is provided, which is information not present in 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?

Two tightly packed sentences deliver all the essential information: prerequisite, behavior, output structure, and sibling interaction. Every clause adds value and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 single-parameter polling tool with a rich output schema and readOnly annotation, the description is complete. It covers authentication, statuses, output content, and a related tool, leaving no significant gaps for a correct call.

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 already provides full coverage for the single parameter, sessionId, stating it comes from start_naming_session. The description reinforces that provenance and adds the requirement context, which gives an agent a slightly richer understanding of the parameter's origin.

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 identifies the tool as one that polls the status of a Naming Session, lists the specific status values, and describes the output content. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming start_naming_session as the origin of the session and positions check_name as a complementary deeper check.

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?

It states that a connected plan/API key is required, describes when to use it (polling a session started with start_naming_session), and points to check_name as a companion for deeper analysis. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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