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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of exposing behavior. The verb 'Poll' conveys a read-only, repeated check operation, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not disclose what happens if the answer is not yet available, whether the call blocks or returns immediately, or what the return value looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element—action, target, and parameter—is conveyed efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description does not clarify the return format or behavior when no answer exists yet, which is important for a polling tool. However, the tool is simple (one required parameter) and the core operation is stated clearly, so it is minimally viable but lacks some contextual detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter semantics. It does identify question_id as the identifier of the ask_a_locator question, which adds some meaning beyond the raw schema. Yet it does not explain where to obtain the question_id (e.g., from the ask_a_locator response) or the expected format of the string, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 verb ('Poll') and resource ('the answer to an ask_a_locator question'), and identifies the required identifier (question_id). This distinguishes it sharply from siblings like ask_a_locator, which creates the question, and search_apartments, which searches for something else.

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 phrase 'ask_a_locator question' gives clear context that this tool is meant to be used after a question has been asked, implying a workflow pairing with ask_a_locator. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage 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.