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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a blocking wait/poll operation it says nothing about timeout behavior, poll duration, whether the call blocks indefinitely, or whether the received code is consumed by the read — all critical traits an agent needs before invoking it.

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 and the scope constraint placed last for emphasis. It is efficiently written, though arguably too terse given the blocking semantics of the operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a wait-based tool the description omits the behavioral facts that matter most (blocking/timeout behavior), so an agent cannot confidently invoke it or handle the no-code case.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The phrase 'existing order' loosely maps to order_id, but neither the expected order_id format/provenance nor the api_key parameter is explained anywhere. With a 0% coverage schema, the description should compensate and largely does not.

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?

Names a specific verb ('wait for') and resource ('SMS code') plus a scope qualifier ('for an existing order'), which clearly separates it from siblings like buy_number or order_history. It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces or contrast with alternatives, but the intent 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 an existing order' implies the prerequisite that an order must already have been placed, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what to do if no code arrives, and no alternative tool named for checking order status or history.

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