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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the description earns credit for the details they do NOT provide: the three non-terminal states (waiting, unavailable, expired), the credential payload delivered on approval, the 5-second polling cadence, and the caveat that a connection is not tracking approval or activation. This is meaningful operational context beyond the annotations.

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 action is front-loaded, followed by return states, polling cadence, and a caveat, all in a compact block with no filler. The closing sentence ('A connection is not tracking approval or activation') is a little cryptic, slightly blunting readability.

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 assumes the burden of describing returns and does so (waiting/unavailable/expired vs full credential payload), plus polling guidance and a caveat. It is nearly complete for a 2-param read tool; only parameter format/error semantics are left thin.

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. It names both parameters and usefully labels poll_token as 'private', signalling it is a secret, but it does not explain the uuid vs 64-hex formats or failure behavior for a bad token. It adds some meaning but leaves the low-coverage schema under-documented.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'Checks a signup and Connect request' using request_id and poll_token, and clarifies that it returns connection credentials after approval. This distinguishes it functionally from start_signup (initiation) and the other status tools, though it never explicitly names a sibling to route against.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'suggested polling interval is 5 seconds' tells the agent it is a poll-after-startup tool and the poll_token/request_id pairing shows the expected flow. There is no explicit when-not-to-use condition or named alternative among the many status/setup siblings.

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