get_event_polling_status

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

The description explicitly labels the operation as read-only, matching the readOnlyHint annotation. It also discloses what the response contains: each known event source, its capabilities, and whether background polling is enabled. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the bare annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what is listed, the second confirms the read-only behavior and return contents, and the third gives practical usage direction. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how to use that output. It also names the relevant sibling tools for follow-up actions. For a parameterless status/discovery tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema carries no semantic burden. The description still clarifies that the operation covers all known event sources, which is sufficient for a no-argument discovery endpoint.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('event source capabilities and background polling state'). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by framing this as a discovery/status tool, not an action tool like poll_events_now or list_runtime_events.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: to discover source names for poll_events_now, or to decide to use list_runtime_events for stored events. This is direct routing guidance and names the relevant alternative tools.

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