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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool polls and waits for a VALID state, but says nothing about timeout, polling cadence, blocking duration, or what happens if processing fails or the build never becomes VALID.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of the timeout and parameter context an agent needs.

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 blocking wait tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the wait condition, timeout behavior, and the build_id parameter. None of these are present, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it without guessing.

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 only 50%: notification_message is documented in the schema, but build_id has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining what build_id identifies, whether it is optional, or how it defaults.

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 polling action and a target state (build processing VALID), so the general intent is inferable. However, 'VALID' is an unexplained internal state and the description never mentions the build being waited on, leaving the purpose only partially specified.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of get_build or list_builds, no indication that it should follow upload_build, and no note on timeout or failure conditions. The agent must guess the workflow context.

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