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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the two outcome states plus the polling interval. It still omits error/expiry cases and permission/auth details, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 action and followed by outcome and retry instruction. No redundant text.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description explains return states without an output schema. However, it leaves the device_code provenance and failure modes unstated, which matters for an agent invoking it correctly after start_signup.

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% and the sole required parameter device_code is not described; the description only refers to 'device 방식' without saying where device_code comes from or its format. It does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific check operation on device-flow user approval and states both outcomes (access_token vs pending). It is clear enough to identify the tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from start_signup/complete_signup by name.

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 a retry rule: if status is pending, call again after interval seconds. That is useful polling guidance, but it never states when to use this versus start_signup or complete_signup, nor any prerequisites such as having a device_code from an earlier step.

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