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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, yet the description goes further and discloses the long-poll duration, the 'pending'/'dismissed' status outcomes, and the fact that a successful call yields a reference, a screenshot, and a full build prompt. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it omits any mention of rate limits, timeout errors, or what happens if the pick is never answered.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the blocking behavior and the timeout, then the success payload, then the dismissed branch. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct operational information.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and the description would not need to explain returns, it still summarizes the success payload and the two non-success statuses, and it tells the agent what to do next in each branch. For a two-parameter blocking tool, an agent has everything it needs to call it and act on the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a loose echo of the wait window ('up to 50 seconds') that does not reconcile with the schema's stated default of 45, so it contributes little beyond what the schema provides.

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 the user to choose on the pick page') and distinguishes itself in practice from the sibling pick_reference, whose returned pickId this tool consumes. The description never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring the pick_reference → wait_for_pick pairing rather than being told.

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 conditional guidance for two of the three outcomes: call again if status is 'pending', and ask what the user wants instead if status is 'dismissed'. It does not spell out prerequisites (that a pickId must first come from pick_reference) or any alternative to waiting, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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