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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds important behavior beyond annotations: another caller's work can keep the workspace busy, a timeout is normal, the tool only observes, never wakes workers, sends notifications, or changes advisory state, and it is not metered.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core behavior, then layers in important caveats about timeout, alternative polling, and side-effect freedom. Despite covering several subtle points, each sentence earns its place by preventing a likely misuse.

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?

Given the rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: scope, timeout expectations, non-polling distinction, side-effect profile, and alternative approach. No important calling context is missing.

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 all three parameters are already well documented in the schema, including poll interval and timeout ranges. The description reinforces timeout behavior and defaults but does not add meaningful meaning beyond the schema for workspace_tag or poll_millis; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: it waits until one workspace has no queued/running processing and no submission Task working, or until timeout. It also explicitly distinguishes this from Task polling and from proving a particular submission succeeded, which an agent can use to separate it from siblings like tasks_get.

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 says when to use it: as a workspace-wide doorbell after one or more Tasks. It says when not to rely on it: it is not Task polling and does not prove submission success. It also names the alternative for hosts with shorter tool-call windows: request a smaller timeout or poll tasks_get.

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