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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful polling behavior: it 'Changes nothing itself' and may return before the decision, in which case it should be called again. It does not describe the response payload, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the wait constraint and mechanism, with no wasted text. The retry instruction follows directly from the behavior described.

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 one-parameter wait tool with no output schema and safety annotations already covering read-only/non-destructive behavior, the description covers the trigger, wait duration, and retry behavior. It leaves a minor gap by not spelling out what a return before decision looks like, but the operational guidance is adequate.

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%, with waitSeconds documented as integer, minimum 0, maximum 45, default 30. The description repeats 'waitSeconds up to 45' but adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Holds') and condition ('until the person has decided on the page link') tied to decideUrl. It explicitly names inbox_zero_start and inbox_zero_decide as the source tools, so an agent can distinguish this wait tool from those sibling tools.

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?

Explains when to call it: after inbox_zero_start or inbox_zero_decide returns a decideUrl, and instructs 'Call it again if it returns before they decide.' It lacks an explicit when-not or alternative selection clause, but usage context is clear.

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