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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond the annotations: server-side waiting up to wait_seconds, early return on user response, and the three possible return states. It also explains the default and maximum wait durations, which is exactly the kind of runtime behavior an agent needs to know. Annotations already signal read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description enriches that with polling semantics.

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 description is a single information-dense paragraph with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then packs in the wait behavior, looping guidance, and return-state semantics in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the two parameters, a blocking wait, and three return states, the description covers all essential behavioral context an agent needs to call the tool confidently. The output schema exists and the description also summarizes the return states, making the tool's expected behavior fully specified.

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 input schema documents wait_seconds but leaves request_id essentially bare beyond being a required string. The description compensates by making wait_seconds meaningful ('waits up to wait_seconds', default 20s, max 45s) and by tying the request to 'a pending request_approval.' It does not explicitly say the request_id is the value returned by request_approval, but the intended relationship is clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll for the user's answer to a pending request_approval.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling request_approval by framing it as the polling counterpart. The return states (pending, answered, expired) further pin down exactly what the tool observes.

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 clear operational guidance: call it back-to-back in a loop and do not add your own delay, because each call waits server-side and returns as soon as the user answers. It does not explicitly state when to use an alternative tool, but the connection to request_approval is clear enough via context.

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