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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: polling semantics, the full status state machine, and which states are terminal. It doesn't cover polling cadence or rate limits, but that's a minor gap given the rich 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?

Four tightly written sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the status list is presented efficiently as an essential reference.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs to call it correctly: purpose, usage context, status meanings, and terminal states.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description only restates 'by its ID' without adding format or usage details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Poll') and resource ('status of a single transaction by its ID'), and distinguishes itself from sibling submit_hash by naming the prior step. An agent can immediately tell this is for checking transaction status, not for submitting or listing.

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 says 'Use after submit_hash to confirm on-chain success,' giving a clear condition and alternative context. The status enumeration and terminal states further guide interpretation of when polling is complete.

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