poll_chat_id_discovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the async nature ('once the user interacts with the bot') and the API key requirement. It does not explain what happens before the user interacts, whether repeated polling is expected, or error/timeout behavior.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the access note is compact. The 'start_login does NOT open this tool' note is somewhat tangential and could be clearer, but there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter polling tool, the description covers the basic call flow and return values. However, it omits polling semantics, pre-interaction behavior, and a pointer to the related wait_for_chat_id_discovery tool, leaving minor but real gaps.

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 token parameter already has a clear schema description: 'Discovery token from create_chat_id_discovery'. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Poll a chat ID discovery token' and explains what is returned (Telegram chat ID, user ID, username). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling wait_for_chat_id_discovery, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The access note gives helpful context: a Proof account and PROOF_API_KEY are required, and the tool should be called again after setup. However, it does not explain when to use this poll tool versus wait_for_chat_id_discovery or other alternatives, leaving usage mostly implied.

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