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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), so credit goes to the added behavior: it discloses the bounded long-poll semantics, server-side continuation, and the re-poll contract. It stops short of describing what is actually returned when the deadline is hit (partial result vs. status marker), leaving a small 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?

Three tight sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. Slightly redundant enumeration of job kinds overlaps with the schema enum, but nothing is padded or buried.

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 read-only wait tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies the crucial long-poll/re-poll contract. With no output schema, the phrase 'the resolved result' is a little thin on return shape, but it is otherwise sufficient to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a sliver beyond the schema by clarifying that template jobs take kind="template" with id=jobId (the schema's id text lists the other kinds explicitly). That is marginal added value, not a re-documentation of all four parameters.

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 a long-running job and return the resolved result') and pins down the mechanism ('a bounded long-poll'). The enumeration of covered job kinds (template, media import, render, compose, consult, suggestions, preview) sharpens the scope and clearly separates it from the many cancel_*/retry_* 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 operational guidance: if the job is still running, re-invoke with the same arguments because work continues server-side. This is a clear usage pattern, but it never names an alternative (e.g., cancel_job) or states when-not to use this tool, so it stops short of the top tier.

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