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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description nonetheless adds valuable behavior the annotations cannot express: it blocks for up to 20 seconds and, critically, that a timeout means 'pending', not approval. It omits what happens to the caller after a timeout or whether the wait is cancellable.

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 short sentences with no filler; the blocking duration is front-loaded and the timeout caveat is a compact, high-value second sentence.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should carry more of the return semantics. 'A pending timeout is not approval' is a useful start, but it does not say what a successful wait yields, nor what an agent should do when the wait expires — leaving a real gap for a blocking, state-dependent tool.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly implies the 20-second ceiling that constrains waitMs (schema default 15000, max 20000) and says nothing at all about what the required 'id' identifies, leaving the key parameter undocumented.

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?

The verb 'wait' plus the resource ('internal answer or customer approval response') is specific and says what the tool returns control over. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_decision by being a blocking wait rather than a one-shot read, though it never names that alternative.

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 description hints at the context (waiting for a decision to arrive) but gives no explicit when-to-use rule and no comparison against get_decision, get_approval, or the list_* polling siblings. An agent has to infer whether to block here or poll elsewhere.

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