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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the polling algorithm (exponential backoff, 2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max, jitter), the auth prerequisite, and the timeout return behavior (status 'pending', retry with same id). These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a long-poll tool.

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-loaded with the core action and terminal states, followed by concise backoff and access notes. The access paragraph is slightly verbose but justified since it warns against confusing this with start_login.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, auth, and timeout recovery adequately. It could be marginally stronger by stating what a terminal-state response contains, but the polling contract is complete.

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%, and the schema already documents the id and timeout_seconds semantics in richer detail than the description. The description restates terminal states but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is structured, so the 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 (poll) plus resource (verification request) and the exact terminal conditions it waits for (completed, expired, cancelled). This clearly separates it from sibling read tools like get_verification_request or list_verification_requests.

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?

Gives a clear context for use (waiting for a request to finish) and explicitly tells the agent what to do on timeout (re-call with the same identifier). It does not name alternate siblings such as wait_for_verification or get_verification_request, so the 'vs alternatives' clause is absent.

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