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

Annotations already establish readOnly/safe and non-open-world, so the description's job is to add semantics: it does, disclosing the long-poll pattern, the two possible return states, and the required re-invocation loop. It does not state what happens if the call never ends or whether repeated polling has cost/rate implications, leaving one behavioral gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the return/retry contract. No filler and nothing repeated from the 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, and the description still usefully summarizes the two outcomes. The main omission is timeout/never-terminating behavior and any guidance on polling cadence beyond "call it again".

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% and both parameters (task_id, wait_seconds with default 55) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or tuning guidance beyond pointing at task_id implicitly, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action (keep waiting/poll for a call result) and ties it directly to the sibling tools that produce the prerequisite state (call_business, modify_booking, call_person, call_me). An agent can immediately tell this is the follow-up/polling tool rather than a call initiator, and the two possible return states are named.

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 clearly states the trigger condition (a call reported as in_progress by one of four named tools) and the retry protocol ("just call it again"). It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it — e.g. that it must not be called before a task id exists — but the context is unambiguous.

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