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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with a pure read. It adds the key behavioral facts an annotation can't carry: a 25-second blocking ceiling, the three wake conditions, and the retry pattern.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the blocking limit and wake conditions front-loaded and the retry instruction last.

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 does say the return value is a session and that it carries a your_turn flag, enough to drive the loop. It doesn't mention pagination of chat messages or what else the session payload contains, a minor gap.

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 67%; 'since' and 'session_id' are documented in the schema. The description's 'up to 25 seconds' implies the timeout_seconds bound (schema maximum is 25), which is the only param-level value it contributes — 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?

States a specific verb ('waits') plus the exact conditions it waits on (your turn, game start, game end) and what it returns (the session). This clearly distinguishes it from the immediate-return sibling get_session, though it never names that alternative.

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 explicit loop guidance: 'Call it again if your_turn is still false,' which tells the agent how to poll. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing at get_session for non-blocking checks.

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