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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the cursor-based polling pattern and the concept of 'redacted' records, but does not explain side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or whether the data is read-only.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key mechanism without any redundant information.

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?

While the description covers the core polling pattern, it lacks information about the response format (especially with no output schema) and does not address edge cases like missing cursor or iteration limits beyond the 'limit' parameter.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter docs. The tool description adds context like 'request-scoped' and 'redacted' that enriches understanding beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Poll') and the resource ('redacted request-scoped agent records') with a specific mechanism ('single-use cursor'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_mission or get_request_status that deal with single records or status checks.

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 iterative retrieval via a cursor but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., for paginating multiple records vs. fetching a single result). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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