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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool blocks until a matching event or timeout, returns the event or nothing, and that filters prevent unrelated events from waking it. This covers the main behavioral traits without contradicting anything. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a simple wait operation these are not critical.

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?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. It states the core behavior, gives a concrete example of when to use it, and clarifies filtering and return value. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 4 simple parameters, no output schema, and no complex nested objects, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, how filters work, and what it returns on success and timeout. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that the provider and type filters ensure 'unrelated traffic does not wake it', which clarifies their purpose in the overall workflow. It also reinforces the timeout behavior. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Block until the next matching event arrives on a bucket'. This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_event or list_events, which are non-blocking retrieval operations. It also specifies the timeout condition, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a concrete, relatable use case: turning 'go click Send test webhook in Stripe' into a synchronous step. It explains when this tool is appropriate (waiting for an event triggered externally) and implies that filters should be used to avoid irrelevant traffic. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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