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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 5s polling cadence and the three terminal statuses with their follow-up actions. It does not state auth/prerequisite details for the deviceCode itself, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return semantics. No filler; every clause conveys an actionable state or instruction.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description carries the essential information an agent needs, including the return states and retry/restart rules. Only the origin and format of deviceCode is left implicit, a minor gap.

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?

There is one required parameter (deviceCode) at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives no meaning. The description implies the device authorization context and that deviceCode originates from the mcpAuth flow, but never names or explains the parameter, so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb (poll) and resource (device authorization completion) and enumerates the exact return states ('pending', 'approved', 'expired'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the mcpAuth sibling as the restart path, so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use behavior: keep polling every 5s on 'pending', start over with mcpAuth on 'expired'. The alternative tool is named along with the condition that routes to it, leaving nothing to inference.

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