check_email_verified

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the polling interval, timeout duration, early return condition, and the no-account case. These are meaningful behavioral traits that go well beyond the tool's name and cannot be inferred from the schema alone.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information: polling mechanics, immediate return condition, and the no-account edge case. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key scenarios: polling, early verification, timeout, and no-account. It does not specify the exact return format, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, this is a minor gap. It is adequately complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the polling behavior (every 15 seconds, up to 30 minutes), which elaborates the 'poll' parameter's meaning and behavior. This adds value beyond the schema without redundancy.

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 function: polling to check email verification status. It uses a specific verb ('Poll to check') and resource ('user's email address'), and it explains distinct outcomes (returns immediately if verified, indicates registration if no account). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like check_prerequisites or check_claim_status, though its unique subject matter makes the purpose understandable.

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 clear usage context: it polls every 15 seconds up to 30 minutes, returns immediately if already verified, and indicates when registration is needed. This implies when to use it and hints at an alternative (registration). It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it, which would have earned a 5.

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