auth_poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the dependency on auth_start and the user action, but does not mention behavior like polling frequency, timeout, or what happens if authentication fails. Adequate but not detailed.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds essential value: the purpose and the usage constraint.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides necessary context about when to call. However, it could mention what the response indicates (e.g., success/failure) to be fully complete.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. Baseline is 4 due to no parameters; the description does not need to compensate.

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 action 'Check if the authentication is complete', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'auth_start' by mentioning it is called after auth_start returns a verification URL.

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 provides when to call ('after auth_start returned a verification URL and the user has completed sign-in') and when not to call ('Do NOT call this unless you just ran auth_start and it returned a code/URL'). This clearly differentiates usage from auth_start.

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