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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a polling operation (suggesting repeatability) and that the signed receipt appears 'once decided', which is a conditional behavior. However, it does not explain auth details beyond the id_token requirement, rate limits, or what happens if the request is not yet decided.

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 sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every clause adds value: the first sentence states the action, the second adds the prerequisite and return behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 polling tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: what it does, a key requirement, and what it returns. It lacks deeper caveats like failure modes or decisions on not-yet-decided requests, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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. It only mentions id_token (requiring the same one), but does not explain request_id at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value for id_token and none for request_id.

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 tool polls one of the user's approval requests, which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from siblings like request_approval (creating) and get_receipt (retrieving a receipt separately). The mention of the signed receipt being included once decided further clarifies its role.

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 phrase 'Poll one of your approval requests' implies usage for checking the status of previously submitted requests. The requirement to use the 'same id_token' provides a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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