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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the credential role of the token, public accessibility, per-IP rate limiting, and the transition from status-only to returning the API key, voice agent id, and embed snippet after payment. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs beyond the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then payment-state behavior, then operational constraints. No sentence is wasted.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed: what it polls, what it returns in each state, and the security/rate-limit context. Nothing essential is missing.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds important meaning by identifying the intent_token as the credential, but it does not explain where the token comes from or its expected format; the schema pattern encodes the format but lacks a textual description.

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 and resource ("Poll an agentic signup by intent token") and clearly distinguishes its role from vf_complete_signup by describing pre- and post-payment behavior. An agent can identify this as the status-read tool rather than a mutation tool.

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?

Explains the polling context and clarifies behavior before payment versus after payment, which helps an agent decide when to call it. It references vf_complete_signup as an alternative path that affects the result, but stops short of an explicit "use this instead of X when Y" rule.

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