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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structure. The description adds the blocking/idle intent but does not say whether the call blocks the agent, what the maximum pause is, or why the tool is flagged as non-read-only despite doing nothing — context that would genuinely help. Some ambiguity exists between 'do nothing' and readOnlyHint=false, but since no data is read or written it is not a hard contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the behavior comes first and the usage example is appended compactly. Nothing to trim.

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 trivial two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It omits the actual pause bound (only in the schema's maximum) and whether the call blocks, which are the two facts an agent most needs when scheduling waits.

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%: ms is documented as 'Milliseconds.' with a 0–10000 range, and api_key explains the auth alternative. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — 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?

The description states a concrete behavior (idle for a duration) and frames it as a pause primitive, which is easy to separate from the action tools (move, mine, attack) and from batch orchestration. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the purpose is 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?

'For example between other actions in a batch' gives a clear, concrete usage context that ties it to the batch tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it or any constraints (e.g., that waits are unbounded from a batch perspective), so it is context without exclusions.

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