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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the read is tenant-scoped and therefore requires the owning organization. It stops short of describing what a poll returns or how a pending operation is signalled.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the endpoint, then the tenant constraint. Nothing extraneous, though the endpoint template mildly restates the purpose sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what a poll returns (state, progress, result) and what terminal states look like, and it does not. The tenancy prerequisite is covered, but for a polling tool the return contract is a meaningful omission.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, even though the schema's own parameter descriptions are bare placeholders like "operation_id (required)". The description clarifies that organization_id is the owning tenant, which adds a little meaning over the schema, but nothing about the operation_id format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Poll an asynchronous operation") plus the underlying endpoint GET /v1/operations/{id}, so the agent knows exactly what is being read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many status-style siblings (import.status, ota.status, push.status, capabilities.status) or say which operations it covers.

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?

"Poll" implies repeated invocation after starting an async job, which gives implied usage guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use framing versus the per-feature status tools, and no guidance on polling cadence or when to stop.

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