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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond this: it mentions authentication requirements, describes event contents including actor info and location objects, and reveals the anti-fraud use case (ProofValidationService). This gives the agent deep insight into operational behavior.

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 a dense paragraph of 4 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose ('Poll for task status changes'), then logically details return values, event structure, and usage. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

The description covers purpose, authentication, event structure, and parameter usage, which is sufficient for a read-only polling tool. However, it does not specify behavior when 'after' is omitted (default null), nor does it mention response format details like pagination or empty-result behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more explicit completeness would be ideal.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds practical guidance for the 'after' parameter ('after=lastEventId for incremental polling; pass after=0 for all events'), clarifying its semantic role beyond the schema's basic description. It does not add much for apiKey or taskId, but the schema already covers them.

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's purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'Poll for task status changes.' It further clarifies that it returns status history entries after a sequence number, distinguishing it from likely sibling tools like get_task_history that might return full history.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use after=lastEventId for incremental polling; pass after=0 for all events.' It implies the tool is for polling new events but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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