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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly. It reveals terminal states, exponential backoff parameters, jitter, timeout behavior, the 'pending' status returned on timeout, and the auth requirement. This is strong, actionable transparency for an agent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary behavior is stated in the first sentence, followed by backoff details and a concise access warning. Every sentence earns its place, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 poll tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential contract: terminal states, timeout re-invocation, backoff, and authentication requirements. It could be slightly more complete by describing the shape of the terminal response, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke and re-invoke 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 both id and timeout_seconds, including default, min, max, and the timeout semantics. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Poll a verification request until it reaches a terminal state (completed, expired, or cancelled).' This clearly distinguishes it from one-shot lookup tools like get_verification_request and destructive tools like cancel_verification_request. The terminal-state enumeration adds useful clarity beyond the tool name.

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 description gives clear invocation guidance: poll until terminal, call again with the same id on timeout, and keep timeout_seconds under the MCP client request timeout. It also states the access prerequisite and explicitly warns that start_login does not open this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the polling usage context is unambiguous.

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