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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing the blocking wait window (0-45s), the polling contract for open status, the refund behavior on expiry, and an authorization constraint ('only the API key that asked can read it'). These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before calling.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and the wait behavior, then the status/return semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 3-parameter polling tool with an output schema, the description supplies the polling loop, the timing bound, the auth constraint, and the meaning of each status branch. Nothing needed to call or interpret the call 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does: it names what 'id' refers to (a question id from ask_a_human), gives the valid range for wait_seconds (0 to 45), and implies api_key must be the key that asked the question. The api_key semantics are only implicit, keeping it short of a 5.

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 (get status and answer for a question id) and explicitly ties it to the sibling tool ask_a_human, which is the tool that created the question. An agent can tell it apart from ask_a_human and message_task_human without opening a 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 context is explicit: use this to poll a question created by ask_a_human, and the 'status is open (call again)' clause tells the agent exactly when to re-invoke. It does not name any competing alternative for retrieving results, but the workflow routing is clear.

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