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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the tool is a polling primitive for async operations and every write tool feeds it. It stops short of documenting return status values or any retry/backoff guidance, which would be the remaining gap.

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 sentences plus a short API reference, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the workflow hint. No filler; every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description could say more about what 'status' resolves to (e.g. running/success/error), though it does convey the binary 'finished or not' question. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only the return shape under-specified.

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% and the single parameter is fully described in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description restates that the tool operates on an action id but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Fetch the status of one asynchronous action') and is unambiguously distinguishable from every sibling, which are list/get resource tools rather than action pollers. The added API mapping (GET /actions/{id}) pins the exact operation.

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?

'Every write tool here returns an action id — poll it with this to see whether the operation finished' gives an explicit trigger condition (after a write returns an id) and the purpose of polling. An agent knows exactly when to reach for this versus the get/list siblings.

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