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

The description provides rich behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it returns pending/expired statuses, never fabricates approval, and on approval binds the signer and returns the created row. This adds substantial context to the idempotentHint and readOnlyHint=false annotations.

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 single opening sentence for the primary action, followed by a clear breakdown of possible return states. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 an output schema and idempotency annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: statuses, behavior on approval, and the fact that it never fabricates results. The tool is simple enough that this is complete.

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. It implicitly references device_code as 'code' but provides no explanation of the caller_id parameter, which remains entirely undocumented. The description adds some meaning for the required parameter but leaves a significant gap for the optional one.

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 this tool polls a signer-authorization request and only authorizes upon approval. It distinguishes itself from siblings like request_session_signer_authorization and authorize_session_signer by focusing on the polling/status-checking behavior and noting it uses the same rails as authorize_session_signer.

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 when to use it: after requesting authorization, to poll status until approved or expired. It mentions the process and relationship to authorize_session_signer, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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