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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the async contract carries the descriptive burden and the description delivers it: the platform wakes the conversation with the run's conclusion or a timeout notice. That non-obvious control-flow behavior, plus the anti-polling instruction, is information an agent cannot derive from the annotation or schema and materially changes how it should behave.

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 action and its trigger, then the follow-up behavior, then identification mechanics. No filler and no repetition; each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description correctly fills the missing return-value story by explaining that the conclusion arrives asynchronously as a wake-up rather than as a synchronous response. Nothing needed to invoke the tool or interpret its result is left unspecified.

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 all six parameters including the head_sha/run_id mutual requirement, the branch disambiguation role, and timeout bounds. The description largely restates the schema's head_sha and branch semantics rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('register a watch on the CI run that commit triggers') and scopes it precisely with the head_sha/run_id identification model. It also names the upstream sibling (github_commit_files) that produces the commit_sha, so an agent can place this tool correctly in the commit-to-CI sequence rather than confusing it with the read-only listing 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?

Gives explicit sequencing (use it after committing), an explicit action to take afterwards ('finish your turn'), and an explicit prohibition ('Never busy-poll workflow runs while waiting'). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance that separates this tool from polling siblings such as github_list_workflow_runs or get_application_workflow_run_jobs.

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