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

The description adds rich behavioral detail beyond annotations: status transitions (pending/completed/failed/not_found), TTL 24h expiry, and the relationship to eta_seconds. Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and the description aligns perfectly with no contradictions.

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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, describing the response states, and giving usage instruction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or fluff content.

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?

Given the presence of a full output schema, annotations, and complete parameter documentation, the description covers all essential aspects: the polling lifecycle, error/expiration behavior, TTL, and the expected invocation timing. It is complete for its intended use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for the single job_id parameter, which already explains its origin and format. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning expired/unknown job_id, which is part of the behavioral status not parameter definition. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll the result of a kyc_screener_batch job.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing the related kyc_screener_batch tool and detailing the polling statuses.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this after the eta_seconds hint returned by kyc_screener_batch.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., kyc_screener for single screening), so it misses the full 5 criteria.

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