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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: this is a polling/long-poll operation that blocks when `wait` is true. It stops short of timeout duration, what happens on timeout, or error behavior, which matters for a blocking call.

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?

A single tight sentence with the mode split front-loaded after the verb; no filler and no repetition of schema or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two operational modes are covered. The gap is blocking semantics: how long the long-poll waits and what it returns on expiry is exactly what an agent needs for a blocking call and is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: `wait` is explained as long-poll vs. current snapshot, which the bare boolean in the schema cannot convey. `session_id` is left unaddressed but is self-evident by name.

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 (poll) and resource (a session), and splits behavior by the `wait` flag, so an agent knows this retrieves session state. It does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g., why not send_message or run_agent), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 when each mode applies (long-poll for the answer vs. grab the snapshot), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use context relative to siblings, and never states prerequisites such as the session needing to be running.

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