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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: blocking semantics, determinism, and the crucial detail that a timeout yields matched:false with next_since rather than an error. Some of this (timeout default/range) duplicates the schema, but the blocking/determinism semantics are unique.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, and each sentence earns its place (scoping, determinism, timeout contract, alternative). No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value context; it explains the timeout return shape but not the success return shape. For a 6-param blocking tool, it is otherwise complete.

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 already 83%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description implies type/resource/match/since but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; 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 (block/wait) and resource (event) plus the exact scoping conditions (type, resource, matching fields, after `since`). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling by routing away from polling rig.event.list.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Prefer this to polling rig.event.list') and names the alternative. It also nails the follow-up case: on timeout, wait again from next_since rather than erroring.

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