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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses default and maximum wait duration, early return semantics, and the notable edge case where a task whose Mac is off returns immediately with waiting_for_mac. It does not describe what a timeout returns or any auth/permission requirements.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior before the timing details and the retry hint. Slightly overloaded with nested parentheticals, but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more to explain the returned shape (e.g., that a timeout yields the current status) and the meaning of the agent/task identifiers. The timing and edge-case coverage is good, but an agent could still be surprised by the return payload.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains wait_seconds indirectly via the '50 s by default, 50 at most' note, but 'agent' and 'task' — both required — get no explanation of what identifiers they expect or where they come from, leaving most parameter meaning undocumented.

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 behavior: it polls task status and blocks until the task is no longer working or queued, and it self-identifies as the waiting variant of task_status. An agent can distinguish it from the plain task_status sibling from this sentence alone, though the phrasing 'returns as soon as it isn't' is slightly elliptical.

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?

'Call it again to keep waiting' gives concrete operational guidance on repeated invocation, and framing it as 'task_status that waits' implicitly routes non-blocking status checks to task_status. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative sentence, which keeps it below a 5.

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