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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the backoff algorithm (2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max, jitter), the semantics of 'cancelled' vs 'revoked', the fact that both are final, the auth requirement, and the timeout behavior (returns status 'pending'). This goes far beyond a minimal description.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives edge-case semantics, then an access note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

Covers purpose, terminal states, polling behavior, auth, and timeout retry, which is nearly everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only notable gap is the lack of a description of the return payload when a terminal state is reached, especially since there is no output schema.

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 fully explains both id and timeout_seconds. The description adds behavioral context about polling but doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 action ('Poll a verification') and a concrete resource ('a verification'), and enumerates the exact terminal states (verified, failed, expired, revoked, cancelled). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling wait_for_* tools and from get_verification, which does a one-time lookup.

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?

Provides clear context for when to call it (poll until terminal, retry after timeout) and a specific exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). It also states the authentication prerequisite and instructs to call again after auth. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools like get_verification, but the guidance is sufficient.

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