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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description meaningfully adds that records are redacted and request-scoped, but it says nothing about pagination termination (what an absent cursor means), cursor expiry behavior, retention, or rate limits — relevant for a polling tool.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant clauses, and the scoping constraint ('request-scoped') is front-loaded with the mechanism ('single-use cursor') at the end. Nothing in it is 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?

Read-only status and parameter definitions are fully covered by annotations and schema, and there is no output schema to explain. However, for a cursor-based polling tool, the description omits how the stream ends (no cursor returned?), what happens on cursor reuse or expiry, and what 'redacted' removes — gaps that affect correct looping behavior.

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 100%, so limit, cursor and request are fully documented in the schema, including maximums and the opaque single-use nature of the cursor. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the burden.

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?

States a specific verb (poll) and resource (redacted request-scoped agent records), scoped by request id. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never mentions how it differs from siblings like get_request_status or get_result_bundle, which also surface request-scoped data.

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 repeated invocation, and 'single-use cursor' hints at a continuation loop, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent cannot tell from this sentence whether to use this tool or get_request_status to obtain the same records.

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