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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 25-second timeout, the 'no change yet' sentinel return, and the reassurance that saved work continues regardless of outcome.

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 with the timeout front-loaded, so the most decision-relevant constraint appears first. No wasted clauses, though the parenthetical reference to get_task is slightly compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out in detail, and the description still covers timing, the change/no-change outcomes, and side-effect behavior. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly; the only gap is the missing explicit when-to-use guidance.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the version semantics ('using the version from its last reply'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 (wait for a task), names the exact bound (up to 25 seconds), and explains what is returned. It also references get_task explicitly, so an agent can tell it apart from the polling/read siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: you supply the version from the last reply and wait for a change, which suggests a long-poll pattern rather than repeated get_task calls. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_task or when not to use it, so the routing is left to inference.

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