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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: a per-call timeout (~45 s), polling/retry semantics for 'pending', the full return shape with the meaning of each status, and the fact that the blocking interaction happens in the Frapea tab rather than being performed by this tool. Consistent with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint since waiting itself mutates nothing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and timing constraint, then the mechanism, then the return contract in a single tight paragraph. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 takes on the return-value burden and does so fully: status union, meaning of 'pending' and 'denied', and the required follow-up action. For a two-parameter waiting tool with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100%, so actionId and token are already documented in the schema with the same provenance detail (token from connect, actionId from a previous tool). The description reinforces where actionId comes from via the dialog example but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (waits for the user to resolve a pending Frapea prompt) and scopes it to dialogs another tool opened, which no sibling in the list does. An agent can immediately distinguish this from polling tools like get_job_status or get_analysis_status.

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?

Clear trigger condition: call this after a tool returned an actionId for an opened dialog, and call again while status is 'pending'. It also implies the retry protocol (~45 s per call). No explicit 'do not call when…' exclusion or named alternative, which keeps it just below top marks.

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