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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: the meaning and terminality of each status, the EMERGENCY_WITHDRAW auto-send-back behavior, the timeframes for BRIDGING and resolution, and the rate limit. This is rich, non-redundant context that materially changes how the agent should act.

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 long, but nearly every sentence carries operational meaning—status definitions, stop-polling guidance, and rate limits are all necessary. It is slightly dense as a single paragraph, and a bulleted list would improve scannability, but it remains well front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool's return values, and it does so exhaustively: all possible status values, their implications, terminality, and the rate limit. For a polling tool with one parameter and a read-only annotation, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter: 'trackingId returned by submit_deposit.' The tool description merely repeats that same mapping without adding new semantics, such as format expectations or examples. Baseline 3 applies because schema description coverage is 100%.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Poll the status of a deposit by trackingId (returned by submit_deposit).' This unambiguously identifies the tool's action and target. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_withdrawal_status, relying on the tool name and the word 'deposit' to make the distinction.

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 gives explicit when-to-use (poll a deposit status) and explicit when-not-to-use instructions: 'do NOT keep polling waiting for the bridge to finish' and 'you do not need to wait for it after BRIDGING.' It also adds polling cadence guidance ('Rate limited to 20 calls/minute per caller, no more than one call every 3s'), which helps the agent avoid misuse.

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