Get fix verification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds polling behavior and scoped reporting ('only what was detected on selected pages'), which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on return format or potential edge cases.

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 very short (two sentences), but the 'Pro+' fragment is incomplete and potentially confusing. It is efficient but lacks clarity in the second part.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, annotations, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not thorough. It conveys the core purpose but misses details like expected response or prerequisites (already partly in schema).

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 schema's description for fixVerificationId is already clear ('The id returned by verify_fix'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, 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 clearly indicates the tool polls a fix verification and reports detected issues. The verb 'polls' and resource 'fix verification' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_fix (which initiates verification) and get_fixes (which lists all fixes), though not explicitly.

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 implies usage after calling verify_fix (since it requires a fixVerificationId from that tool), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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