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

The description states the tool polls and returns status, and that once a human has answered, the answer is returned. It also indicates that the ticket must have been previously lodged on this MCP, which is critical context. Since no annotations exist, this is a reasonable degree of disclosure, though it does not mention polling frequency or timeout behavior.

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, concise and front-loaded with the purpose and key behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it. It explains return value and context but could mention polling behavior or errors; still, it's adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides a full description of the ticket_id parameter, including a pattern and example. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema has, so a 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 states a specific verb ('poll'), a resource ('ticket'), and its scope ('previously lodged on this MCP'), and lists the ticket types (RFQ, terms request, escalation), distinguishing it from the sibling submission tools. It is clear and specific.

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 implies usage for tickets already submitted, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., before submission, or alternatives). It is clear enough for an agent to infer, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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