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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds a behavioral detail: it polls until a match or explainable failure, which is not contradictory to the annotations. The excessive experimental disclaimers do not contradict but add noise.

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 functional description is compact, but it is immediately followed by a long all-caps disclaimer that dominates the text. This dilutes the core message and makes the description less concise than it could be.

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?

With no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., match details or failure reasons). It also does not describe how the polling parameters (intervalMs, maxAttempts) shape the behavior. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent.

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 zero description coverage for its three parameters (intentId, intervalMs, maxAttempts). The tool description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meanings. This is a severe gap.

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 purchase intent until it matches or returns failure reasons. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like caravan_post_intent or caravan_pay_reveal by focusing on retrieval/status checking rather than creating or committing.

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 a functional usage context ('Poll a purchase intent'), but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over other siblings or what conditions would make it inappropriate. No alternative tools are referenced.

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