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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds critical behavior the annotations cannot express: it blocks for about 50 seconds, it polls for a state change (payment), and it returns a branch signal the agent must act on. This is exactly the kind of latency and outcome semantics an agent needs before committing to a 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?

The trigger condition is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by duration, then the two outcomes and required follow-ups. Roughly three sentences with no filler; every clause carries an instruction the agent must know.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still explains what the two return branches mean and what the agent should do in each case. For a one-optional-param blocking tool with full annotation coverage, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (lang) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description never mentions language handling, adding no meaning beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (wait) and object (Drint upgrade), plus the exact mechanism: blocks up to ~50 seconds until payment lands and the space is on Pro. Nothing in the sibling list (get_dieline, make_dieline, my_drint, etc.) overlaps, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 an explicit trigger ('right after a Drint tool reported a plan limit and you gave the person its upgrade link'), an explicit post-condition action ('carry on at once... call the tool again'), and an explicit handling of the negative branch ('tell them the link still works and call it again when they say so'). When-to-use and what-to-do-next are both covered.

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