aws_resource_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds depth by naming the ProgressEvent and listing specific OperationStatus values (PENDING, IN_PROGRESS, etc.), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage instruction and expected outputs. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity of polling an async operation, annotations handle safety, and schema covers all parameters. The description provides expected behavior and status types. Lacks mention of error handling or retry guidance, but is sufficient for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions requestToken and its origin, but the schema already describes it similarly ('RequestToken from a previous create/update/delete call'). The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond schema.

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 explicitly states 'Poll the status of an async Cloud Control API request', specifying the verb (Poll) and resource (status of async CCAPI request). It distinguishes from siblings like aws_resource_create/update/delete which initiate the async operations.

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 tells users to 'Pass the requestToken returned by those tools', clearly indicating when to use this tool—after a previous create/update/delete call. It also lists possible return statuses, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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