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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the meaning of each status value, which states are terminal vs in-progress, and the rate limit (20 calls/minute, one call every 3s). No contradiction with 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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, status semantics, and rate limit. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only poller with no output schema, the description conveys the essential operational details: status values, terminality, and rate limits. It doesn't explicitly outline the full response object shape, but the '`status` is one of' phrasing provides enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the call correctly.

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% and the single parameter trackingId is already described in the schema. The description repeats the 'returned by submit_withdrawal' origin but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Poll'), a clear resource ('status of a withdrawal'), and the key input ('trackingId'). It also differentiates from the sibling get_deposit_status by noting withdrawals have no cross-chain bridging leg, unlike deposits, so an agent can distinguish between the two 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?

The description gives explicit polling behavior: keep polling while PROCESSING and stop at terminal states (SUCCESS/FAILED). It also provides concrete rate limit guidance. It does not explicitly name get_deposit_status as the alternative for deposits, but the 'unlike deposits' note provides strong contextual guidance.

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