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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe, non-mutating behavior. The description adds useful context about what the agent can expect in the outcome (editor link for ready, reason for failure), but it does not discuss polling frequency, response format, or any edge cases.

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?

A single, compact sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key outcomes. No filler or 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?

Given the low complexity and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return behavior by naming the three states and what each provides. It could be slightly stronger on usage timing, but the core calling context is clear.

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 50%: guest_token is documented but deck_id is not. The description adds little beyond the schema, though 'a submitted deck' loosely connects to deck_idapiens. It does not clarify how guest_token should be used beyond the schema note.

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 resource (a submitted deck import) and the operation (checking its status), listing the possible outcomes: importing, ready, or failed. It is distinct enough from siblings like list_decks or see_deck, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies the tool should be called after submitting a deck to poll its import progress, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or indicate that it is the only status-checking tool. No exclusions are provided.

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