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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: a 25-second wait bound per call and the four possible terminal/pending statuses. It stops short of saying what to do with each status or how many times to poll.

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 wait bound and return values front-loaded; essentially no waste, though the status list could be formatted more scannably.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return statuses and notes that the approved case yields the API key and MCP settings. The only gap is guidance on how to act on each status.

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 100% and the schema already describes deviceCode as coming from start_login, so the description adds no new meaning about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action (wait for the human to approve the login) and anchors it to the sibling tool start_login, so an agent knows exactly which step of the login flow this is.

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 reference to 'the login from start_login' and 'up to 25 seconds per call' makes the call ordering and the need to re-invoke on pending clear by implication, but no explicit when-not or retry instruction is given.

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