poll_agent_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it states that no API key is required, that als_ is stable and reusable, that authorization should be set to the returned token, and that the owner should never be asked to paste ap_. It does not describe polling timeout, max attempts, or failure statuses beyond 'approved', which are the main remaining gaps.

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?

Roughly five dense sentences with no filler; the core polling action is front-loaded, followed by the success path, the retry behavior, and safety guardrails. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter pollig step with no output schema, the description covers the source of the input, the approval condition, the auth token setup, the next tool to invoke, and the re-poll fallback. It stops short of specifying other response statuses or an eventual timeout, but the essential call path is complete.

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 schema already documents sessionId at 100% coverage, but the description adds provenance ('Pass sessionId from begin_agent_link') and, more importantly, guidance to re-poll the same sessionId if tools still ask for a key. This makes the parameter's lifecycle explicit rather than just its type.

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 action ('Poll AgentPay browser connect') and a clear terminal condition ('until the owner clicks Разрешить'), which immediately distinguishes it from begin_agent_link and verify_connection. It also names the sessionId source and the follow-up tool, so the tool's role in the flow is unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: pass sessionId from begin_agent_link, poll until approved, then call verify_connection. It also states when to re-poll the same sessionId instead of generating new credentials and warns against inventing keys or asking the owner for ap_, covering both when to use and what not to do.

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