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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: polling with exponential backoff (2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max) and jitter, timeout behavior returning 'pending' and allowing re-call, and the auth requirement. It is transparent about what happens on timeout and that it's a polling tool, providing all necessary behavioral context.

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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then backoff details, and an ACCESS note. It is slightly long but every sentence carries necessary information—backoff, auth, and timeout nuance. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the primary function.

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 polling tool with auth requirements and timeout behavior, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it behaves, authentication steps, and parameter guidance. No output schema exists, but the behavior on timeout and terminal states is clearly described, making it complete for correct invocation.

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% for both parameters, but the description adds valuable context: timeout_seconds has a default of 50, max of 300, and is tied to the MCP client's request timeout (60s default), with explicit guidance to keep it under that limit and note about pending on timeout. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states it polls a session until a terminal state (verified, failed, or expired), specifying the verb, resource, and outcome. It distinguishes from other wait_for_* tools by explicitly naming the session and terminal conditions, and even clarifies that start_login does not open this tool, leaving no ambiguity.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context by requiring authentication and telling the agent to authenticate first, then call again. It also warns that start_login does not open this tool, guiding the agent away from a potential misuse. Timeout guidance relative to MCP client limits is practical and helps the agent decide parameters.

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