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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the polling behavior and the meaning of each status, adding value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't mention the cost of polling (it says 'Gratis' but not rate limits), how to handle errors (e.g., invalid ticket), or whether it's a read-only operation. Still, the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 one sentence that is concise and front-loads the key information (Gratis, polls). It clearly explains the states without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple polling tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: states and their meanings, and the expiration. It could add a note on error handling or what happens if the ticket is invalid, but given the simplicity, it's nearly complete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (ticket and resultToken). The description adds context by stating they come from ask_human_verdict, but doesn't add additional syntax or format details. Baseline 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 polls the status of a ticket and lists the three possible states (pending, completed, expired) with meanings. It specifies the resource (ticket from ask_human_verdict) and the verb (pollea). It distinguishes itself from its sibling by focusing on querying, not creating.

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 explicitly says it is for polling a ticket created by ask_human_verdict and describes the states and the expiration period. This provides clear context for when to use it versus the sibling, which is for creating the ticket. It also implies it's for checking results after creation.

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