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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It clearly defines all possible states, explains what 'pending' means, specifies terminal-state behavior, and includes access/auth prerequisites. This is well beyond a minimal description.

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 organized into a concise summary, agent usage instructions, and access requirements. Every paragraph serves a distinct purpose, and critical operational details are front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers how to invoke, response states, terminal state handling, and authentication requirements, so an agent can call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents session_id as '2FA session ID.' The description adds context that this is used after start_2fa, but doesn't add substantial semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a 2FA session by session ID.' It also enumerates the possible return states, making the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like start_2fa and verify_2fa.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to poll after calling start_2fa, to check every few seconds, and what to do at each terminal state ('expired' → restart with start_2fa, 'verified' → proceed). It lacks an explicit comparison to alternatives like wait_for_2fa, so it doesn't fully cover when-not-to-use.

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