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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the burden and delivers: backoff schedule (2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max, jitter), terminal vs pending state meanings, the fact that no link is returned, and the auth prerequisite (Proof account; start_login does not open this tool). The only gap is that it never restates the timeout behaviour of the poll loop returning 'pending' plus re-call semantics are covered in the schema rather than here.

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?

Front-loads purpose and backoff, then usage, then auth. Efficient overall, but the get_confirmation_approval_link digression is long and syntactically tangled ('it needs the confirmation to be still pending — the state this tool waits in — and also refuses once timeout_at has passed'), costing clarity for content that serves a sibling tool more than this one.

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 exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does: terminal states 'approved' (with proof_token check) and 'denied', plus 'pending'. Combined with auth requirements and re-call guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool.

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 both parameters (id, timeout_seconds) are already fully documented in the schema, including the default/max and client-timeout caveat. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 verb and resource ('Poll a confirmation until the approver responds'), which cleanly separates it from sibling one-shot readers like get_confirmation and list_confirmations. The name plus first sentence tell an agent exactly what operation 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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('Call this after create_confirmation with the returned confirmation ID') and names the alternative get_confirmation_approval_link with the condition that selects it (approver needs a link, confirmation still pending, timeout_at not passed). This is genuine when/when-not routing.

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