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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: polling is metered, intervals start at 1s and back off to 10s, the result reports poll count, a failed build surfaces as an error, and a timeout returns timedOut: true with buildStatus "building". This is exactly the context an agent needs to handle the call's cost and outcomes.

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?

Two dense sentences, terminal conditions first, then cost/backoff behavior, then the failure and timeout outcomes. Every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully explains the salient return semantics (poll count, timedOut, buildStatus). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 list, index, and timeoutSeconds are documented in the schema itself; baseline is 3. The description only alludes to the timeout ('running out of time') without adding format or default detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (index) plus the terminal conditions (ready or failed), which cleanly separates it from rebuild_index, create_index, and list_indexes. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Usage is implied (call it after kicking off an index build to block until completion), but no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given. A reader must infer that this replaces manual polling via list_indexes.

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