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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-mutating call, so the description only needs to add the blocking/waiting behavior — which it does by saying it waits and then returns events. It omits what happens when the wait elapses with no events (empty result? timeout indicator?), whether the wait can return early, and that the call blocks up to the maximum. Useful but incomplete for a long-blocking call.

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, behavior first and the usage rule second, with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs — waiting, bound, return, and anti-pattern.

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 single optional-parameter tool with no output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essentials: it blocks, it returns events, and it replaces polling. The missing pieces — default value and timeout behavior — are minor, though the timeout case matters for a call that can block up to 50 seconds.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does establish that `seconds` is a wait duration, but the bounds (1–50) come solely from the schema, and no default is given for the optional parameter even though it is not required. Adds partial meaning over the raw schema.

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 new events (up to `seconds` seconds) and return them. This is clearly distinct from the polling-oriented siblings and an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema. It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

"Use instead of frequent polling" gives explicit when-to-use guidance and implicitly routes the agent away from game_events-style polling loops. It does not name the alternative tool explicitly, nor does it advise how to choose a `seconds` value (short for responsiveness, near 50 for long waits), which is the main practical decision left to the caller.

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