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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds real value by disclosing that the call blocks and returns the job's result. It omits critical behavior for a wait tool: timeout, whether it polls or blocks, and what happens on job failure — gaps that matter a lot here.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the scope parenthetical second. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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, the description only says 'return its result,' giving no sense of the result shape. Combined with the silence on timeouts and failure modes for a blocking operation, it is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never says where a job_id comes from (presumably list_jobs or a creation tool) or what form it takes, leaving the only required input underspecified in both places.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('wait for') plus a specific resource ('long-running job') and enumerates the job kinds it covers (creation, edit, custom animation, export). This distinguishes it reasonably from the sibling list_jobs, though it does not explicitly name 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 phrase 'long-running job' implies this is the follow-up to some async operation, so usage is inferable. However, it never says which tool starts a job, nor explicitly contrasts blocking here versus polling with list_jobs, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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