lc_poll_search_query

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

No annotations are present. The description implies a read operation by mentioning 'returning checkpoint state for resume', but does not disclose whether it mutates state, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The behavioral context is minimal.

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 a single sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices clarity and completeness at the expense of brevity. It is front-loaded but lacks essential details.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the return value beyond 'checkpoint state', nor does it describe pagination behavior or the meaning of 'bounded'. Sibling tools exist for related search operations, but no differentiation is provided.

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 input schema has 4 parameters (oid, query_id, limit, token) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone. This is a significant gap.

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 states the tool polls one bounded LCQL search page and returns checkpoint state for resume. It uses a specific verb 'poll' and identifies the resource as a search page. While jargon like 'LCQL' may assume domain knowledge, the purpose is well-defined.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lc_execute_search_query or lc_cancel_search_query. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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