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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the polling lifecycle context and the dependency on start_connect, but omits the terminal-session states an agent needs to decide when to stop polling and what errors to expect.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the lifecycle cue front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity arguably leaves real gaps that a slightly longer description could have closed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned -- session status values, terminal states, and how to interpret them -- and it says none of this. For a polling tool whose entire purpose is interpreting returned state, this is a significant shortfall.

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 50%: profileId is documented in the schema as coming from list_profiles, while connectionSessionId has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all (no format, no origin, no pairing rule), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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') and resource ('a connection session'), and ties it directly to the sibling that creates the session, 'start_connect'. An agent can tell it is the status-read companion to start_connect, though it doesn't state what a 'session' contains.

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 start_connect, which gives implied usage context. However, it never says when to stop polling, what state indicates completion (connected vs expired vs pending), or what to do if the session is unknown.

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