Check whether the user has finished picking

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

Annotations already declare this as safe, read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond those hints: `ready` flips to true on confirmation, and prolonged false suggests the user hasn't opened the link. This explains the polling lifecycle without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two short paragraphs, each earning its place: the first states purpose and the core `ready` behavior, the second gives operational polling guidance. No filler or redundant repetition of the title or schema.

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 polling tool, the description covers what the agent needs: how to start the poll, what `ready` indicates, how often to poll, and when to abandon polling. The optional account parameter is fully described in the schema, and no output schema exists to complicate expectations. The guidance about asking the user handles the realistic failure case.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both `session_id` and `account`. The description reinforces that the session comes from start_pick_session and implies polling frequency is referenced from that call, but it adds little beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a picker session started by start_pick_session.' It clearly defines the tool's responsibility and gives the key semantic detail that `ready` is true once the user confirms a selection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_pick_session and list_picked_media.

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 provides explicit guidance on how to poll: respect `poll_interval_seconds`, avoid tight looping, and stop polling after a few minutes to ask the user. It names the originating tool and gives a clear 'when not to continue' condition, which is strong usage guidance for an agent.

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