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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two valuable facts: the required permission scopes and the one-shot nature of bearerKey ("appears once when secretsDelivery is revealed"). However, it omits job state/terminal-state semantics, whether a second poll after reveal permanently loses the secret, and any rate-limit or idempotency guidance for a polling endpoint.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the high-risk one-time-secret caveat follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 covers purpose, permissions, and the single most consequential return value (the one-time bearerKey). It falls short only on job lifecycle states and failure/re-poll behavior, which an agent coordinating a bulk provisioning flow would want.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single jobId parameter is already documented in-schema as coming from create_provisioning_job. The description adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Poll a bulk provisioning job" gives a specific verb (poll) and resource (bulk provisioning job), plus a parenthetical that scopes the required permission surface (treasury + keys:manage + wallets:read). It is clearly distinguishable from write-side siblings like create_provisioning_job, though it never names the sibling that produces the jobId.

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?

"Poll" implies repeated invocation after job creation, and the parenthetical signals required scopes, but there is no explicit statement of when to stop polling, expected cadence, or what to do if the job is already complete. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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