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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description need not repeat those. It adds value by disclosing the dependency on prior URL generation and that the return provides the final intentMandate. It does not describe failure or pending-state behavior, but the annotations lower the bar.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, and no wasted words. Every phrase carries meaning.

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 an output schema available and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, when to call it, and what it returns. It lacks details on polling intervals or pending-state behavior, but these are not critical given the context signals.

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%, with the sessionToken parameter described as 'returned by request_payment_authorization'. The description adds no extra parameter details, but the schema already handles it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb (polls), the resource (status of spending mandate setup), and the intended outcome (get final intentMandate). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like request_payment_authorization by explicitly mentioning it follows URL generation.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this after generating a setup URL'. It does not mention when not to use, but the context is clear and sufficient for a polling tool with a single prerequisite.

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