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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior. It does add the polling aspect, which is useful, but it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or polling semantics—so the added value is moderate.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the primary action first and appends the polling behavior without filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-required-parameter read tool with readOnly annotations, the description is sufficient for selection and initial invocation. It omits return-format details and polling cadence, but the low complexity and clear schema make these minor gaps.

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%, with sessionId described as 'Session identifier' and params documented as optional raw JSON. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the schema carries the semantic burden and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific resource ('single checkout session') and action ('Show'), and the 'or poll its latest status' adds behavior that distinguishes it from peer_checkout_list and other show-type siblings. The scope is clear and immediately usable.

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 implies use when a single checkout session needs to be retrieved or polled, but it never explicitly names alternatives or conditions for when to prefer this tool. The 'single' wording hints at differentiation from list tools, but the guidance remains implicit rather than stated.

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