Check sign-in progress

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

readOnlyHint already signals this is a safe read, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the optional blocking behavior, the state vocabulary, and the timeout behavior. It doesn't contradict the annotation.

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 tight sentences: the first states the purpose and possible states, the second explains the optional blocking parameter. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 read-only poller with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it names the states, explains the blocking behavior, and ties the tool to the auth_start workflow. No output schema exists, but 'report the state' plus the enumerated states sufficiently conveys the return concept.

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 schema already fully documents wait_seconds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that wait_seconds blocks until the sign-in settles or time runs out, giving the parameter a behavioral meaning beyond 'seconds to wait.'

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 names a specific verb ('Report'), a clear resource ('the sign-in started by auth_start'), and enumerates the exact state values (idle/pending/completed/failed). This makes it easy to distinguish from auth_start (which starts the flow) and the unrelated sibling tools.

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 tool's context is clear: it should be used after auth_start and can optionally block via wait_seconds. It doesn't explicitly spell out when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource and workflow are specific enough to guide selection.

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