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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of behavioral context beyond that: a rate-limit/polling constraint and a token-handling caution, both of which matter for correct invocation.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the operational constraints. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the returned status looks like (boolean? approved/pending/rejected enum?). It only says 'whether ... approved', leaving the result shape ambiguous, and it doesn't state error behavior for an invalid or expired token.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only partly does. 'Keep the agent token private' hints at the sensitivity of agentToken, but enrollmentId is never explained, nor is where either value comes from.

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 and resource: 'Check whether a signup was approved.' An agent can distinguish this from prepare_signup (which presumably initiates a signup). It doesn't explicitly name the sibling relationship, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 a polling cadence ('no more than once every 30 seconds'), which is useful operational guidance, but never says when to call this versus alternatives or what precondition (e.g., after prepare_signup) applies. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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