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

The description explains a genuinely non-obvious behavior: a poll can mutate state by flipping stale prompts to TIMED_OUT inline, which justifies the readOnlyHint=false annotation rather than contradicting it. It also enumerates the terminal status states and the backoff expectation, adding real context beyond the annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, return states, timeout mutation semantics, and polling cadence. The most surprising fact (inline TIMED_OUT flip) is stated before the operational advice, so it is well front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the status values and the answer text behavior. For a single-parameter polling tool this is complete; an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents requestId. The description adds no format, length, or provenance detail beyond naming request_user_input as the source of the id, which is the expected baseline for a fully covered single parameter.

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?

Specific verb (poll) plus specific resource (status of a prompt created via request_user_input), and it explicitly names the sibling tool that creates the prompt. An agent can distinguish it from every other get_* sibling without opening the schema.

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 states the operational context clearly: this tool is only for prompts created by request_user_input, and it prescribes a backoff cadence (5s, 10s, 30s, 60s), which is actionable guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions or alternatives, but for a poll tool with a single upstream creator there is little else to route to.

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