check_return_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals that this is a polling operation, specifies polling cadence, enumerates possible status values, and states the return shape. It could additionally note that polling has no side effects or what to do on ERROR, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then polling instruction, then concise args list, then return values. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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 straightforward polling tool, the description covers the invocation pattern, all required parameters, the completion condition, and the status vocabulary. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe the return structure further, so nothing critical 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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter: access_token is the taxpayer session token, gstin is a 15-digit identifier, ret_period uses MMYYYY format, and reference_id is the one returned by the upstream save/proceed calls. This adds real meaning beyond the raw parameter names.

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's job: poll the status of a save or proceed operation, explicitly tagged as Step 3. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like save_gstr1_data and proceed_to_file.

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 gives direct operational guidance: call repeatedly every 5 seconds until status equals COMPLETED. It also tells the agent where reference_id comes from (save_gstr1_data or proceed_to_file), effectively specifying when and after what this tool should be invoked.

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