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

The description discloses significant behavioral details: the wallet is provisioned only on approval, the server-enforced conservative default policy is applied (with specific limits), a 10-execution counter is added, and the tool returns the server's readback policy rather than the intended one. This adds valuable context beyond the annotations, which already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 concise and well-structured: a short first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a compact paragraph detailing approval-side effects. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core action, the approval condition, policy specifics, and the surprising readback behavior. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, it lacks guidance on obtaining the device_code and details about polling lifecycle expectations (e.g., timeouts or repeated calls), which leaves some minor gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or purpose of device_code or caller_id. The phrase 'Poll a Lane 2 enablement request' implicitly suggests device_code identifies the request, but this is not explicit and does not adequately compensate for the total lack of schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('poll') and resource ('Lane 2 enablement request'), and clearly states the effect: provisions the wallet only once approved. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like poll_wallet_policy_loosening and enable_agent_wallet by tying polling to the enablement lifecycle.

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 implies a usage context: polling a pending Lane 2 enablement request. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as poll_wallet_policy_loosening or approve_proposal, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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