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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the blocking/latency profile (waits up to a bounded timeout) and the required re-invocation loop, which the annotations cannot convey. It does not discuss failure modes such as what is returned on timeout expiry, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 sentences, no filler, with the blocking behavior and timeout bound front-loaded ahead of the retry instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the definition covers purpose, the retry contract, and the return payload by reference to get_run_status, which the agent can resolve from the sibling set. Polling interval and timeout-expiry return behavior are the only omissions.

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 0% and the schema gives only bare types, so the description must carry the load: it supplies the timeout_seconds domain (1 to 60), which is genuinely new information not in the schema. run_id is left implicit, but its meaning ('the run to wait on') is self-evident from the resource name.

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+resource ('waits ... for a run to finish') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_run_status by noting it returns the same payload but blocks. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

'Call it again while the status is still queued or running' gives the operating loop and implicitly contrasts with one-shot status polling via get_run_status. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of repeatedly calling get_run_status' rule, so it is clear context without stated exclusions.

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