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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a bounded 40 s wait (long-poll semantics) and the fact that a timeout still returns partial progress plus last output lines rather than an error. It does not say what happens if the job_id is unknown or expired, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the product scope, then the timing behavior, then the return content. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the 40 s bound is stated up front where an agent will see it.

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 and only three optional parameters, the description carries the right burden: it explains both success and in-progress returns and discloses the timeout. It is slightly thin on error/expiry cases and on how this differs from the Mac job-status sibling, but nothing essential for a correct call 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 job_id, session_id and request_key defaults are already documented in the schema. The description only refers to 'a job' generically and adds no meaning about how job_id or session_id resolution interacts with the wait, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Wait ... for a job ... to finish') and states the return shape ('its result, or what it is doing and its last output lines'). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, get_mac_job (the Mac counterpart) or phone_job_cancel.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a long build' suggests it is called after launching a job, and the 40 s cap hints at polling versus blocking. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over re-calling it, over phone_job_cancel, or over the Mac-side get_mac_job, and no prerequisite that a job must already exist.

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