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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds substantial context on top: the wait is server-side, capped at 200 s, returns as soon as the work finishes or fails, otherwise returns the latest status while still running, and costs nothing ('Free'). Those are exactly the traits an agent needs to avoid timing out or misreading a still-running response.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the key constraint (200 s, early return), then packs the kind-to-id mapping into a single dense line, which is efficient but reads as crammed. No sentence is wasted; the enumeration is the only mildly heavy part.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining what comes back (finished, failed, or latest status), and it documents cost and the user-facing prerequisite. The one gap is that it never points to where the actual result payload is retrieved (the result/status siblings) once the wait succeeds.

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 75%, and the description adds real meaning beyond it by mapping each kind value to the id it expects (task_id from atlas_start_gem_analysis, job_id, batch_id, report_id) and flagging that jd_fit_batch needs batch_id + context_id. It does not explain max_wait_seconds behavior in prose, but the schema documents that parameter with bounds and a default.

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 ('Wait for background work to finish') and immediately frames the scope against the alternative behavior ('instead of checking its status repeatedly'). An agent can distinguish this from careerproof_task_status / atlas_get_*_status siblings without opening their schemas.

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 the selecting condition clearly (block on completion rather than poll status) and adds a mandatory pre-call step: 'Tell the user the work has started before you call it.' It stops short of explicitly naming the status-checking siblings or saying when polling is still preferable (e.g., very long jobs beyond 200 s), which keeps it from a 5.

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