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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical side effect: each call advances the demo one stage (received → read → case → draft → sent). It also explains the termination condition and what to do with the result (show case_record), covering the return value despite no output schema.

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 concise yet information-dense. Every sentence serves a purpose: polling frequency, stage sequence, side effect, and final action. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and flows logically.

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 polling tool with side effects and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: when to call, what changes on each call, when to stop, and how to interpret the final result. It is complete and actionable.

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 already has 100% coverage with a clear description and example for reference_code. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 tool's purpose: 'Check how far an email demo has got.' It specifies the resource (email demo progress) and the verb (check), and distinguishes it from siblings like start_email_demo by focusing on polling status rather than initiating.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this every ten seconds or so after start_email_demo until stage reads "sent"' and explains the stage progression. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context and sibling list make it clear this is for email demos only.

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