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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses blocking behavior, timeout, and event-matching semantics. However, it doesn't mention what happens on timeout (error vs empty result), whether events are consumed/destroyed, or how it interacts with the event stream. These are meaningful gaps for a blocking tool.

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, zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise. Every word 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 blocking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify timeout behavior and return semantics. It states the timeout exists but not what the agent should expect on timeout or failure. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate gap, not a severe one.

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 all four parameters. The description adds the conceptual framing of 'filters' and 'event matching' but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Block') with a clear resource ('an event matching the filters') and states the timeout behavior. It distinguishes itself from polling/sleeping approaches, which helps an agent understand its unique role among sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this after triggering an action instead of sleeping and polling.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasts with alternatives like tail_logs or search_logs. It could name a specific sibling, but the guidance is strong enough.

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