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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: the request stays open and its help centers refuse agent-key writes until all are completed or declined, there is a 60-checks-per-hour limit, a wrong id or token returns 'not found' indistinguishably from a nonexistent request, and no agent_key is needed. These are exactly the failure modes and side constraints an agent needs before polling.

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-loads the action and the credential source, then a dense but well-organized return-value inventory followed by rate limits and security caveats. The trailing Args list largely duplicates the input schema, which is the only real waste.

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 carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates status values, expected_by, retry_after, the help_centers array fields, handoff_url semantics, and next_step. An agent has everything needed to interpret the response and act on 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains request_id and status_token, including 'never show it to the user'. The description adds the token's 30-day post-request validity and that no agent_key is required, but repeats the schema's provenance note and only restates response_format in the Args block, so it only marginally exceeds the baseline.

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 ('Follow a migration request') and names the exact credentials it consumes, which ties it directly to the sibling helpcenter_request_migration that produced them. An agent can distinguish this poll/status tool from the request-creation sibling without opening either 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 polling guidance ('Check at most every retry_after seconds (900)') and the credential lifetime ('the token works until 30 days after the request ends'), which tells the agent when checking is valid and how often. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it, but the operational context is clear.

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