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

Annotations flag this as non-read-only, non-idempotent and open-world, and the description supplies the matching operational context: a 45-second lease that expires without renewal, non-reviving semantics, and a required auth scope (anonping:match). This goes well beyond the structured hints, which say nothing about timing, lease mechanics, or permissions.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct operational constraint — cadence, lease lifetime, non-revival, termination, scope. Nothing is restated from the name or annotations and the highest-value constraint (the 15-second poll) leads.

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 owns the burden of explaining the return, and 'return status' is left vague — an agent does not learn what the status payload contains (queue state, matched peer, error cases). Lifecycle, auth scope, and safety behavior are otherwise fully covered.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rules the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to explain. The only input-adjacent information it adds is the required scope (anonping:match), which is auth context rather than a parameter.

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+resource: 'Explicitly continue a live match wait and return status.' It also draws the boundary against the sibling start_match by declaring it 'never starts or revives an expired wait,' so an agent can distinguish renewal from initiation without opening either 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?

Explicit when-to-call ('Call every 15 seconds only during an authorized wait'), when-not-to ('Never starts or revives an expired wait'), and stop conditions ('after match, cancellation, disconnect or user departure'). Both the cadence and the exit criteria are enumerated rather than implied.

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