Usero

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the response arrives exactly once, that the pollToken is dead after ready, and that the agent must act on the setup snippet immediately. These are critical behavioral details not inferable from annotations alone.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes: operation, expected responses, token lifecycle, polling cadence, timeout, and next action. It is front-loaded with the most important instruction and contains no 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?

For a polling tool with no output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what triggers readiness, the exact return states, once semantics, token expiration, polling interval, timeout guidance, and the follow-up call. Nothing essential 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?

The schema already fully describes pollToken as returned by start_signup, so the baseline is solid. The description adds extra value by warning that the token is invalid after ready, which is parameter lifecycle information 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?

The first phrase 'Poll after start_signup' states the exact operation and sequencing, and the description then enumerates the two return states (pending and ready), making it unmistakable what this tool does. It clearly positions itself as the follow-up to the sibling start_signup tool.

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 provides concrete instructions: poll every 5 seconds, continue until ready, don't end the turn, then apply the setup and call create_client. This is exceptional routing and workflow guidance for an agent.

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

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

Annotations only provide minimal readOnly/destructive hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It fully discloses side effects: an email is sent, the user must press a button and confirm, opening the page alone does nothing, no key is shown in the browser, and there are rate and expiry limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries essential operational information: user interaction, security behavior, follow-up mechanism, and limits. The core instruction is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 supplies the key return value (pollToken) and explains its purpose with check_signup. The end-to-end user flow, prerequisites, rate limit, and expiry are all present, making the tool safely callable without additional documentation.

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, so the description adds little new parameter meaning. It reinforces the rule to ask for the email rather than invent one, but clientName is not mentioned in the description at all.

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 action: start the signup flow by emailing a connection link, and clearly frames its role relative to the only sibling, check_signup, which consumes the returned pollToken. The description is explicit about what the tool initiates and what happens next.

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 direct operational guidance: ask the user for their email, do not invent one, and explains the exact user-side steps required for success. It also mentions the rate limit and 15-minute link expiry, which are important for deciding when to call or retry.

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