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 that the tool returns the current status and the full message thread, and 'poll' implies non-blocking repeated calls. This aligns with the idempotent/read-only behavior without contradicting the 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?

The description is two concise sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource; the second states the return value. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter, read-only polling tool, the description covers the core purpose, return value, and workflow. An output schema exists to define the exact return shape. It could explicitly mention polling until a terminal state, but this is not essential given the simplicity and the annotations.

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 the schema already clearly explains conversationId as 'The conversation ID returned by submit_inquiry when kind is conversation_created'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'poll' and identifies the resource as 'MCP agent inquiry conversation' with the purpose 'for agent replies'. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like submit_inquiry (which creates the conversation) and other search/list tools. It also states the return content: current status and full message thread.

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?

The description implies a polling workflow after an inquiry has been submitted, as it says 'poll... for agent replies'. The parameter description also references submit_inquiry, linking the tool to its creation counterpart. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage context is clear.

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