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

It discloses critical, non-obvious behavior: the api_key appears exactly once, must be stored immediately, paired_with identifies the connected account, and the user must be shown that account. This goes well beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint false).

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?

Two sentences: the first states purpose, the second immediately highlights the critical response handling. No filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 covers the essential return values (api_key, paired_with) and required user action. It doesn't describe pending states or error scenarios, but for a small polling tool it is largely self-contained.

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?

Both parameters already have full descriptions in the schema, so the description adds little beyond naming pairing_code as coming from register_agent. It doesn't explain claim_token in its own words or add any new parameter-level 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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a pairing code from register_agent.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_registration or register_agent by indicating a polling/read step in the registration flow.

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 clear usage context: poll after register_agent, with a specific behavior on the first poll after approval. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the intended workflow is evident.

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