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

Discloses the critical one-time return of the token and the immediate handling requirement (save to .env, never log). It also explains the token's scope and limitations, which annotations alone do not convey. The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false because polling can consume the one-time token without being destructive.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: the core polling definition, the security-critical token handling, token scope, and polling cadence. It is front-loaded with the main operation and keeps warnings compact rather than duplicating structured 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, it fully covers return states, the one-time token, storage/logging constraints, and polling interval. No essential calling information is missing; the 'from the connect tool' schema hint ties it to the required poll_secret.

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 only parameter, poll_secret, is fully documented in the schema ('The poll_secret from the connect tool'), so the baseline applies. The description adds context by identifying the request being polled but does not add extra parameter details beyond the schema.

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 the specific action ('Poll a connect request') and the resource, and enumerates return variants (pending | denied | expired, or app id and API token). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like connect, which presumably creates the request, and from money-movement tools such as transfer/refundInvoice that use a different token.

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?

Explicitly instructs to poll every 3-5 seconds while pending, and frames the token's scope so an agent knows this path is for read/invoices/subscriptions/webhooks, not for moving money—transfers/refunds/checks require the primary token. This gives actionable when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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