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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Poll' hints at a non-blocking or iterative pattern, but it does not explain what happens before completion, what the return value means, or what error/retry conditions exist.

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 minimalist and front-loaded with no wasted words. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification: there is no context, usage guidance, or parameter information to structure, so efficiency comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'task result' looks like and how polling behaves. It provides only the core intent, leaving return values, completion detection, failure modes, and polling semantics unspecified.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, taskId, is documented only by its name and title. The description does not mention the parameter at all; its role is inferable from the tool name but not explicitly explained.

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 action and resource: 'Poll for task result' clearly indicates a retrieval/status operation. It is distinguishable from createTask and getBalance by that verb-resource pairing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it loses the fifth point.

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 word 'poll' implies that this is meant for repeated status checks after a task has been created, likely via createTask, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when not to use it or what alternatives exist. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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