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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context by framing the tool as a poll and revealing the terminal-state stop condition, which goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 two short sentences with no filler, restatement of schema, or redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded and the single most important polling behavior is stated immediately afterward.

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 simple read-only poll with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and stopping condition. It does not explain polling intervals or lifecycle background, but those are not needed for correct invocation, especially since an output schema exists.

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 directly document ticket_id. However, with only one parameter whose name is self-explanatory and the description's reference to 'an action ticket', the meaning is reasonably inferable without heavy compensation.

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 states a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('an action ticket's current state'), so an agent can tell this is a status/read tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from actionlayer_get_job or actionlayer_get_task, but the 'action ticket' wording distinguishes it enough to be clear.

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 gives one concrete usage directive: stop polling when is_terminal=true. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over sibling status/polling tools or when not to use it, so the guidance is minimally adequate but not explicit.

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