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

Rich disclosure beyond the annotations: server-side blocking, hard deadline behavior, timed_out=true with the plan still live, resumability by re-calling with the same plan_id, durability of state across dropped connections, and the key fact that a human approving in the dashboard is what actually executes the action. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=true — the tool observes, it does not decide.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then layered with deadline and durability semantics in a small number of dense sentences. The durable-state sentence partly repeats the resumption point, a minor redundancy, but nothing is padding.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return shape, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to call, how long it blocks, what a timeout looks like, how to resume, and who actually executes the action.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining that plan_id originates from a gated tool's pending_approval result and that reusing the same id resumes the same wait, plus that timeout_s bounds every call. The 45/55 numbers duplicate the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 ('Waits for a parked plan to be decided') and pins down the exact lifecycle it observes: blocks until the plan reaches a terminal status (applied, rejected, expired, failed) and returns it. This is clearly distinguishable from the polling sibling get_plan_status because blocking vs. returning a snapshot is spelled out.

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?

It tells the agent precisely when to use it: the plan_id comes from a tool result with status pending_approval, and a timed-out call should be resumed with the same plan_id. There is no explicit exclusion naming get_plan_status as the non-blocking alternative, so the when-not is left implicit.

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