Check Wallet Connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the result vocabulary (pending, connected, failed, unknown) that the agent otherwise would not know. It omits how long a pairing can stay pending and what causes 'unknown', which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a polling tool.

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 action and the dependency on connect_wallet, then the possible outcomes. No filler or restated title.

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 enumeration of the four possible states is exactly the return-value information an agent needs, and the sibling linkage closes the loop with connect_wallet. Completeness falls slightly short on polling/expiry semantics for a long-running pairing check.

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 already documents itself as the pairingId returned by connect_wallet, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Poll a pairing') and ties it to the originating sibling connect_wallet, so an agent can tell it apart from the wallet-creation flow. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other status tools like get_auth_status or get_tx_status, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It clearly states the triggering context: use this only for a pairing that was started by connect_wallet, which implies the correct position in the flow. It gives no guidance on polling cadence, when to stop polling, or what to do on 'unknown', so alternatives and exclusions are absent.

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