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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Poll' hints at repeated calls but gives no interval, timeout, or terminal-state behavior, and no return shape (pending/approved/denied). The sandbox warning about fictitious data is useful context but does not cover the tool's operational behavior.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The sandbox note is separate and clearly demarcated, though it sits oddly in a description without more operational context.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what polling yields and how to interpret pending versus resolved states, plus the source of link_id/poll_secret. These are missing, leaving an agent under-informed for a two-param workflow step.

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 0%, so the description must explain both required params. It names link_id and poll_secret but adds no meaning: where they originate, their format, or how poll_secret is obtained. Naming alone adds nothing beyond the schema's property names.

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+resource: 'Poll for human approval of a data grant.' An agent understands the operation. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like moltbound_grant_status or moltbound_approval_request, leaving ambiguity about why one polls versus checks status.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over moltbound_grant_status, moltbound_approval_request, or moltbound_consent_link. The only usage-like statement is that it takes link_id and poll_secret, with no preconditions, ordering, or exclusions stated.

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