Check for the user's decision

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

The description reveals the polling nature (repeated calls) and the condition for proceeding ('when answered is true'), which implies non-blocking behavior. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, error states (e.g., invalid ticketId), or whether the tool is read-only.

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 concise (two sentences) but poorly structured. It jumps into the 'answered' condition without first stating the tool's purpose or return format. It is efficient but lacks clarity in flow.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns, how to interpret the response, or what to do if the ticketId is invalid. The level of detail is insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 0% coverage, and the description only says 'Poll a ticketId', without explaining what the ticket_id represents or how it relates to the user's decision. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type constraint.

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 a ticketId and checks for the user's decision via the 'answered' flag. It mentions the 'response' field, giving a clear verb-resource mapping. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_briefing' or 'resolve', which might also involve checking statuses.

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. The description implies it should be used after a request has been made, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when to stop polling.

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