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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. "Poll" implies a repeated read, but the description never says whether the call blocks, what status values come back, whether a task can expire or fail, or how often polling is safe — all essential for a polling tool with no output schema.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its provenance front-loaded and the disambiguation clause second. Nothing could be removed without losing routing 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a poll returns and what to do with it (keep polling vs. stop). It covers identity and origin of the task but leaves the entire result-handling side unspecified.

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 is already documented as "Task id from queue_edit." The description's parenthetical adds only the same provenance, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Poll a queued edit task by taskId") and ties the resource back to its producer, queue_edit. It also carves out the boundary against the export job_id concept, though it never names the sibling tool check_job_status that a confused agent would actually reach for.

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?

"Poll a queued edit task... returned by queue_edit" tells the agent exactly when this tool applies: after queue_edit. The note that this id is separate from job_id (exports) is a useful negative condition, but it is implicit rather than a direct "use check_job_status for exports" routing instruction.

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