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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds important behavior: it waits up to ~45 seconds, may return a result or stage_label, and should be called again after reporting the stage. This explains the polling and wait semantics that annotations alone do not capture.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries useful information: scope, non-behavior, wait time, return behavior, and next-step instruction.

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 one-parameter read-only polling tool with rich annotations, the description covers the important operational behavior and return alternatives. It could say more about the shape of the result object, but it is largely complete for this complexity level.

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 only parameter is documented at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains that change_id comes from verify_change. The description implies the same relationship but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource: fetching the result of a verify_change that was still running. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the likely sibling verify_change by saying it never starts a new review.

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 clearly says to use this after a verify_change is still running and instructs the agent to tell the user the stage_label and call again. It does not explicitly compare against veridu_review_status or veridu_review, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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