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

The readOnly and destructive annotations already indicate no side effects, and the description adds transparency by listing possible statuses and the resulting credential_id on fulfillment. No contradictions exist.

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 concise, uses only two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose and usage context without unnecessary detail.

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 includes the return shape, status values, and the event that triggers use, which is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It could be slightly more explicit about status filter values, but overall context is strong.

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 single status parameter is mentioned as a filter, and the possible status values are implied in the return shape (pending|fulfilled|cancelled), but the description does not explicitly state that those are the accepted filter values or explain the default behavior.

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 connect_credential requests that were previously minted, and distinguishes it from related operations by referencing the connect_url handoff. It gives a specific verb, resource, and purpose.

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 to use this tool after handing the user a connect_url to check whether the request finished, which provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not contrast with search_credentials or connect_credential, but the primary usage context is well stated.

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