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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent, and the description adds substantial extra context: the ~20s long-poll window, the guarantee that polling never writes, and the precise meaning of timeout_exceeded (the await_decision timeoutSeconds deadline, not a human action). It also enumerates all terminal and non-terminal outcomes.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the polling behavior, required input, and return values come in that order with no filler. Slightly clause-heavy, but each clause carries distinct behavioral 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?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates possible return statuses and included fields (comment, settings, conversation, iteration), which is exactly what an agent needs to branch on. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 67% and decisionId has no schema description, but the description clarifies that only decisionId is required and that hatchId is read from the decision rather than supplied. It does not address tenantId (the legacy alias), so the schema must still carry that.

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 (long-poll the decision) and the exact condition it waits on (until it leaves pending_review). An agent can distinguish it from siblings await_decision and poll_approval from the description alone.

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 concrete call guidance: only decisionId is required, hatchId is derived, and call again if still pending_review. However it never says when to prefer this over await_decision or poll_approval, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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