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

Annotations only assert readOnlyHint=true, and the description stays consistent with that while adding substantial behavior: exponential backoff parameters (2s, 1.5x, 30s max) with jitter, the pending response on timeout with an instruction to re-call with the same id, and the finality of cancelled/revoked. The access/authentication requirement is also spelled out, which annotations do not cover.

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 the poll-until-terminal behavior before the semantics and access notes. Each paragraph earns its place, but the middle paragraph's shrug-style aside on cancelled/revoked is a little verbose relative to the rest.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by defining the terminal states and the timeout return value (status 'pending'), plus auth prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret what comes back.

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 timeout_seconds schema text already carries the default, max, and client-timeout caveat, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (poll) and resource (a verification) and enumerates the exact terminal states it waits for, so an agent can distinguish it from non-blocking siblings like get_verification or get_multi_channel_verification_status. The cancelled/revoked clarification further sharpens what 'terminal' means here.

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 clear context for when to block on a verification and warns that a lost-race verification becomes cancelled, so the wait returns. It also carries a prerequisite about surfacing the link/SMS text to the user before calling, and notes start_login does NOT open this tool. It never explicitly contrasts with the non-blocking get_verification / get_proof_status alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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