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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the three terminal/non-terminal states (pending | collected | expired), which tells the agent when to stop polling, but omits whether the call is read-only, any rate limits on polling, and auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — action, input, and outcome all in one line. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of omitting necessary context.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description at least enumerates the possible status values, which partly compensates. However, for a polling tool it should mention polling cadence/termination conditions and the reference's origin, leaving it adequate but not complete.

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 0% for the single 'reference' parameter, and the description only restates 'by reference' without specifying its format, origin (e.g., returned by wavepay_checkout), or constraints. The listed states are return values, not parameter semantics, so they add nothing here.

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 ('a payment by reference'), and the enumerated states make the intent unmistakable. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like wavepay_checkout (initiation) and wavepay_register, though it never names them explicitly.

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 usage after a checkout, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling wavepay_checkout that creates the payment, and no statement of when it is unnecessary. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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