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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the terminal status set (pending/passed/failed), the per-check expected-vs-observed detail, the diff, and a next_action field, which tells the agent what it will get back and whether the work is finished.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its producer, then the blocking option. The verbless list style ('expected vs observed per check, the diff and next_action') is dense but readable; nothing is padded, though the telegraphic phrasing takes a moment to parse.

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 correctly compensates by naming the status values and return fields, and it explains the wait/poll tradeoff. It stops short of covering edge behavior such as an unknown or expired verification id, or whether repeated polling is preferred over a single long wait.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the 0-30 range, the 30 s cap and the default of 25. The description only adds the framing that wait applies when the verification is still pending, which is a small contextual gain over the schema rather than new syntax or format detail.

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 verb+resource ('Status of a verification') and immediately anchors it to the producing siblings (verify_task / verify_site), plus enumerates the status values and payload (expected vs observed per check, diff, next_action). This distinguishes it from get_task and get_finding without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of verify_task / verify_site tells the agent this is the follow-up read, and 'Pass wait to wait for a pending one' gives one concrete usage rule. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to siblings like get_task or get_finding, so an agent must infer the routing.

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