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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the polling behavior, response statuses, and lack of authentication. However, it does not mention any polling timeout or rate limits, which would improve transparency further.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior, polling interval, and auth requirement. No extraneous 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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage flow, response codes, and authentication. It lacks details on polling duration or error handling beyond 410, but is largely complete for its complexity.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by linking them to the pair-agent flow but does not introduce new semantics beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 for an API key after human approval of the pairing code. It specifies the flow, response codes, and polling frequency, distinguishing it from the sibling 'pair-agent' tool that initiates the pairing.

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 advises polling every 5 seconds and explains the meaning of each HTTP response code (202 pending, 200 ready, 410 expired). This gives clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance without requiring additional context.

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