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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it explains the timeout result shape, the stop reasons (manual takeover, delayed), the nextStep field on status, and that a delayed price can be re-waited on. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs to write a correct poll loop.

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 core behavior (wait, return when ready or at timeout) and then layers the edge cases. Dense but each clause carries distinct information; only the final sentence about delayed prices is mildly redundant with the earlier 'delayed' mention.

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 compensates by describing what comes back (quote list, status, nextStep) and the terminal/non-terminal conditions. An agent has everything needed to implement a correct wait-and-retry loop.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to timeoutSeconds by stating what happens when it elapses ('returns with the status so far') and implies the retry cadence. It does not elaborate on intentId beyond what the schema already says.

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 (wait) and precise resources (quotes, final price) and frames itself as the polling companion to jerry_request_quotes / jerry_request_final_price. An agent can distinguish it from jerry_get_quotes or jerry_get_status without opening any schema.

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 clear when-to-use context: call after requesting quotes/final price, call again while still running, and keep waiting when the status is delayed. It does not explicitly name the immediate-return siblings (jerry_get_quotes, jerry_get_status) as the alternative for a non-blocking check, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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