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

Annotations only flag openWorldHint and non-idempotency; the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the 25-second blocking wait, the one-time display of the returned API key, the fact that login_id cannot be reused, and the side effect of creating EVM/Solana/TON wallets when the account has none. It also spells out the required follow-up action (save as X-API-Key and reconnect), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the polling rule before the status semantics, and every sentence carries operational weight (status handling, key-saving, tasks fallback). It is dense rather than wasteful, though the run-on status enumeration could be tightened slightly.

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 fully documents the possible results ('pending', 'completed', 'denied', 'expired'), what each means, and what the agent must do next for each. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and follow through on this tool is missing.

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% and the single parameter's schema description ('login_id returned by the login tool') is already complete, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Finish a login started with the login tool') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling `login` by positioning itself as the completion half of a two-step flow. An agent can tell from the first clause that this is the polling/finalization counterpart, not a new authentication attempt.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to keep re-calling while pending and NOT to ask the user for confirmation, then routes to `login` on denied/expired, and names an alternative path for clients with the tasks extension. When-to-use, when-not-to-prompt, and the alternative on failure are all covered.

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