poll_chat_id_discovery

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

It discloses the completion condition (user must interact with the bot), the return payload, and an explicit auth prerequisite (needs a Proof account / PROOF_API_KEY, and that start_login does not open this tool). The only gap is polling cadence/timeout behavior, but the readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile and the description adds real operational context beyond it.

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?

Purpose and return values are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the user-facing UX caveat and an ACCESS block. It is slightly long, but each block (return contract, UX warning, auth) earns its place and none is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 description correctly specifies the return fields, and it covers the auth prerequisite and the prerequisite flow (token from create_chat_id_discovery). What remains thin is polling/timeout guidance and the contrast with wait_for_chat_id_discovery, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 token parameter is documented in the schema as coming from create_chat_id_discovery. The description adds no syntax, format, or expiry detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter 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?

States a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('chat ID discovery token') and describes what comes back (Telegram chat ID, user ID, username). It is distinguishable from create_chat_id_discovery by the verb, but it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling wait_for_chat_id_discovery, leaving the poll-vs-wait distinction to inference.

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 description ties the tool to create_chat_id_discovery as the token source and gives a when-to-prepare rule about surfacing links to the user, which is genuinely useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over wait_for_chat_id_discovery, so the key selection decision between the two polling/waiting siblings is left to the agent.

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