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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds behavioral context by listing the categories of returned data and emphasizing the 'single call' nature, beyond what annotations offer. It does not disclose edge cases or rate limits but adds meaningful context.

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 three sentences long, with each serving a clear purpose: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. There is no wasted wording or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, return categories, and usage guidance. It lacks an output schema, but the description compensates by listing the key response components. It could be more detailed about the semantics of 'wallet summary' and 'webhook health', but this is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 100% because the only parameter (apiKey) has a description in the schema. The description merely repeats 'Requires: API key' without adding new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles the parameter semantics.

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 you can 'Check if you have any pending actions in a single call' and enumerates the exact types of data returned (tasks, decision requests, support tickets, wallet summary, webhook health). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools by presenting it as an aggregate overview rather than a single-purpose endpoint.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to efficiently poll for work instead of calling multiple endpoints', which gives a clear when-to-use directive and implies an alternative (calling multiple separate endpoints). However, it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so it falls slightly short of the highest standard.

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