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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description's real contribution is disclosing that the call blocks/holds the request for up to 25 seconds – the single most important behavioral fact for an agent scheduling this call. It does not state what is returned when the wait expires empty.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the time bound and cursor dependency front-loaded before the return behavior.

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 two-parameter polling tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is mostly sufficient. The gap is the empty-timeout case and whether the cursor is reusable, which an agent needs to write a correct polling loop.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the cursor's role and echoes the 25-second maximum, but adds no format or reuse guidance beyond that; 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 (wait), resource (events), a hard bound (25 seconds) and the cursor anchoring semantics, plus examples of what events are (reply, delivery receipt). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name the sibling (list_events) it differs from, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

The phrase 'after a cursor' and the schema note 'Omit on the first call' imply the long-poll loop, but the description never says when to prefer this over list_events or replay_event, nor what to do on an empty result. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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