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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the recommended polling frequency, the meaning of edited_by_contact, and the need to read `current` in that case. This gives the agent practical operational context without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, parameter provenance, polling cadence, and a conditional edge case. No filler, front-loaded with the core action. It is a model of compact, information-dense prose.

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 read-only poll with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, when to use it, how often to poll, and a special condition. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains that request_id and status_token come from the submit_project_request call, which is critical provenance info the schema alone does not convey. This is exactly the kind of clarification an agent needs to fill in those fields correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Poll a request') and immediately ties it to the sibling submit_project_request, making its purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_broker_guidance and positions itself as the follow-up to submission.

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 states polling cadence ('at most hourly while pending and daily once confirmed') and provides a conditional instruction ('If edited_by_contact is true, read the final requirements from `current`'). It also notes the parameters come from the submit call, so the agent knows exactly when and how to use this tool.

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