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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a 25-second blocking/long-poll wait and the shape of the outcome (either human-relayable text like “Your number’s verified.” or a “no change yet” result). It does not cover error or stale-version handling.

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?

Two tight sentences with the wait behavior and duration front-loaded, followed by the input source and the return contract. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

Covers the essentials an agent needs: how to obtain the version, the time bound, and what comes back (with an output schema also present). It omits what happens on an invalid/stale version or repeated no-change results, which for a polling tool would be useful.

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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by stating the version can come from check_account or from the last wait, not just 'the last reply', which clarifies the token's lifecycle.

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 (setup), and a bounded scope (up to 25 seconds while the owner works through setup), which an agent can distinguish from wait_for_task or check_account. It also names the chaining source (setup.version from check_account) so the tool's role in the flow is unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to call it: after check_account or after a previous wait, reusing the returned version token. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g., versus wait_for_task or polling check_account directly), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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