Get secure input result

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the exact state machine (waiting/completed/failed/cancelled/expired) and the fact that the response payload is only populated once completed, which tells the agent when to stop polling.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the core action front-loaded and the state enumeration folded into a parenthetical; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 usefully summarizes the return value (status plus AwardWallet's response once completed). For a simple one-param read tool this is nearly complete, though it omits any polling cadence or error-handling guidance.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents that submissionId is the value returned by call_api_write_operation (including its 32-char pattern). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 specific verb and resource ('Returns the status of a request waiting on the secure input page') and even enumerates the possible states, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_status, leaving a small ambiguity about which status tool applies.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema note that submissionId comes from call_api_write_operation hints this is the follow-up poll after starting a write flow, but the description itself never says when to call it, when not to, or how it relates to get_status.

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