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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and idempotent nature, but the description adds crucial behavior: 'clears the AGNTA grant ONLY once approved' and 'never fabricates approval.' It also specifies return statuses (pending, expired, approval). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single concise sentence followed by a clear breakdown of return values. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. However, the description omits parameter explanations and gives only implicit usage guidance. It does cover key behavioral constraints (approval-only clear) and identifies the non-Lane-2 wallet context, but the lack of parameter semantics leaves a noticeable gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameters, but it does not mention caller_id or device_code at all. The only parameter needed is device_code, yet its meaning or format is not explained. The description fails to add any value over the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Poll a grant-clear request; clears the AGNTA grant ONLY once approved.' It specifies the action (poll), the resource (grant-clear request), and differentiates from siblings like clear_agnta_grant (direct clear) and request_agnta_grant_clear (initiate request). It also notes it clears only on approval, which is distinctive.

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 typical usage after a request, and clarifies it's for a 'non-Lane-2 wallet' and uses the same rails as clear_agnta_grant. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the contrast with request/clear tools is implied. This provides clear context without explicit exclusions.

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