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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context — the cost model ('free and unmetered, paid once at submit') and the status machine with its recovery action. It leaves the origin of 'pollAfter' unstated (it is not an input parameter), a minor disclosure gap.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the purpose before the cost and status details, with no filler. It is a long semicolon-chained clause stack rather than cleanly separable sentences, which costs a point on structure but not on information density.

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?

For a one-parameter polling tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers the failure modes an agent must branch on and the retry semantics. The return shape is only described loosely ('the complete answer rides in this response') and there is no output schema, so the payload format remains somewhat vague.

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 schema field description already says 'the uuid the ask tool returned', which the description largely restates as '(from ask)'. No format or syntax detail is added beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (collect) plus specific resource (async answer keyed by ticketId) and an explicit tie to the originating sibling ('from ask'). An agent can distinguish this polling tool from ask (submission) and from the many get_* siblings without opening any 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?

Gives a clear operational loop: poll on 'working' after pollAfter seconds, stop on 'done', and re-ask on 'failed'/'lost'. The trigger condition (call after ask returns a ticketId) is implied by 'from ask' rather than stated directly, and no sibling alternative is named, so it falls short of a 5.

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