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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description justifies both: the first check after completion returns the API keys (and optionally the server key), and they are never shown again. That one-shot secret disclosure is the key behavioral trait beyond structured data. It does not describe the possible status states or how to tell when polling should stop.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the key behavioral caveat and the polling cadence. Nothing is redundant or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, yet it never names the status values or terminal states an agent needs in order to decide whether to keep polling. The keys-returned-once detail is valuable, but the return contract is left incomplete.

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% and both parameters are already documented as values returned by create_setup_link. The description reinforces the same provenance but adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description conveys that this reports the status of a setup link ('Where a setup link stands') and ties it explicitly to create_setup_link, whose id/token it consumes. The verb is implied rather than stated directly, but an agent can distinguish it from create_setup_link and the other siblings.

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?

It gives concrete timing guidance: call once the person finishes, and poll every few seconds while they remain on the page. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the operational context is clear enough to drive correct invocation.

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