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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds that the call is non-blocking, that it never returns a credential, that 'client_installed' is real observed authentication, and that each response carries a next_action field. It also explains why polling is appropriate (human install action, no fixed timeline).

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its return states, and every clause carries information. It is slightly dense with nested parentheticals and em-dash asides, which costs a little readability, but nothing is filler.

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 compensates by listing the possible return states and noting the next_action field, and it covers the blocking/non-blocking tradeoff. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents that claim_token comes from claim_url after /claim/. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail for the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully documented single-parameter schemas 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?

States a specific verb (read-only, non-blocking check) and resource (the claim_trial_inbox connection's current state), then enumerates the exact states returned. An agent can distinguish it from await_trial_inbox_claim without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use this instead of await_trial_inbox_claim when you want to check progress WITHOUT blocking') and gives the condition that selects it, plus practical polling guidance ('occasionally, not in a tight loop'). Nothing is left to inference.

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