Poll an ask for its answer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: polling cadence, expected terminal statuses ('completed' or 'error'), and the processing response shape with poll_hint. This is meaningful supplementary disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses labeled sections (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, ARGS, RETURNS) that make scanning easy. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter polling tool, the description is complete: it explains when to use it, what argument to pass, what the return envelope looks like, and how to handle the processing state. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema covers the parameter format. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents ask_id as 'From talonic_ask.' The description reinforces this by saying ARGS: ask_id and explaining it comes from a talonic_ask response, but it does not add substantial new meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('an ask for its answer'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from talonic_ask by stating it is for asks that were still processing. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from siblings.

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 USE WHEN conditions (talonic_ask returned status 'processing' with an ask_id) and a NOT FOR exclusion (asking a new question via talonic_ask). This gives an agent clear decision criteria for when to select this tool over alternatives.

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