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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does so well: it discloses the per-step flags returned, the automatic agent_id delivery, and the polling cadence. It stops short of describing failure modes or timeout behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences deliver purpose, expected output, and polling guidance with no filler. The most important usage constraint is front-loaded, and every clause adds actionable information.

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 polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what to pass, what to expect in return, and when to call. An agent could confidently invoke this tool correctly.

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 single session_id parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the session comes from start_onboarding but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific action ('Poll the setup session') and a specific resource ('the setup session you started with start_onboarding'), then enumerates the exact return fields. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools by tying it to the onboarding flow.

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 explicitly says to poll every few seconds after handing over the deep link, which places the tool in the onboarding sequence relative to start_onboarding. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the usage context is clear.

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