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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a polling operation (implying the answer may not be immediately available), which is useful context, but it does not disclose pending/failed states or retry expectations — the key behavioral detail for a poll tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, resource, and keying parameter all appear immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the one parameter is covered. However, for a polling tool the description omits the behavior an agent most needs — what to do while the answer is unavailable — leaving a meaningful gap.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as the id returned by ask_a_locator. The description's 'by question_id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (poll/check) and resource (the answer to an ask_a_locator question) keyed by question_id, and explicitly ties itself to the ask_a_locator sibling as the source of the id. Clear enough to distinguish from the sibling, though it doesn't contrast against other polling-style siblings.

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?

Use of the word 'Poll' implies this is called after ask_a_locator and may need repeating until an answer exists, but the description never states when to call it, how often, or when to stop. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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