get_login_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool polls and that notify errors are included, but it does not clarify whether polling is side-effect-free, whether it consumes the session, or what 'notify errors' actually means.

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?

Single concise sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical adds one meaningful detail without bloating the text.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what statuses are returned and how to interpret them. It only mentions notify errors, leaving the caller without enough information to fully understand the response.

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% and the description does not explain session_id. The parameter name and the 'login-link session' context give some implicit meaning, but the description adds no format, provenance, or usage detail for the required parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('login-link session status'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('includes notify errors'). This separates it clearly from siblings like create_login_link and retry_login_webhook.

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?

Polling is an implied usage context (checking status after a login link is created), but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus retry_login_webhook or create_login_link, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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