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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the bounded response envelope, the terminal=true consumption requirement, that no raw result or logs are returned, and that re-checking starts a new cached query without old cursors/anchors and no provider refresh. These are critical behavioral details that an agent needs to invoke correctly.

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 information-dense but well-structured: the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral caveats, a clear REQUIRED/Optional section, and a concrete example. Every sentence contributes value, and the formatting aids quick comprehension despite its length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (polling with both legacy and modern refs, terminal states, caching behavior) and the lack of an output schema or annotations, the description covers all critical aspects an agent needs to call it correctly. It explains the response envelope, when to consume result/source_anchor, and how re-checks work. 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains task_ref as an opaque ref from insights_query_consistent, task_id as a legacy UUID, and response_mode as optional and compact for task_ref. The example further clarifies the intended call shape, adding meaning well beyond the bare 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 description clearly states the verb 'Poll' and the resource 'Agent Method task', and distinguishes this from the many sibling task tools by focusing on status retrieval via task_ref or legacy task_id. It also clarifies it returns a bounded status-only envelope, not raw results or logs, which separates it from related query tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: polling a specific Agent Method task, with a REQUIRED section that exactly one of task_ref or task_id must be provided. It also gives a negative guideline ('never resubmit the original page-one Agent Method query merely to recover that task') and explains the behavior of later checks, effectively telling the agent when not to use alternative recovery approaches.

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