poll_request_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the meaning of terminal statuses (APPROVED, REJECTED, EXPIRED, CANCELLED) and PENDING, and clarifies that this is a non-blocking operation by directing blocking waits elsewhere. While it doesn't cover error behavior or rate limits, the key behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by status definitions and an alternative tool reference. Every sentence contributes value and there is no waste.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete. It covers the statuses and the alternative, and the lack of an output schema is partially compensated by listing expected status values. It could explicitly state the return format or error handling, but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 covers the single parameter fully with a description for requestId, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The tool description does not add extra detail about the parameter, but the baseline is 3 given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource as the status of a cQnce authorization request. It also lists terminal statuses, making the tool's function unmistakable. The explicit mention of wait_for_approval as an alternative further clarifies its distinct role.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus wait_for_approval, saying 'For a blocking wait, use wait_for_approval instead.' This provides clear guidance for the primary alternative. It does not mention other siblings like get_request, but the core usage distinction is well covered.

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