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

Annotations already give readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by capping the block at 15s and mandating backoff, but it omits what happens on timeout (empty result? stale version?) and nothing about auth requirements for the credential field.

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?

Two short clauses with the time cap front-loaded, so it is compact. However part of that scarce space is spent on a field that does not exist in the input schema, and the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 described. But for a blocking, credentialed, idempotent wait tool with 0% parameter coverage, the definition should at minimum explain what is being awaited, what after_version means, and what a timeout result looks like – none of which is present.

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%, so the description carries full responsibility for four parameters, and it explains none of them. Worse, it cites next_poll_after_ms, which is not even a parameter in the schema, while after_version, timeout_ms and the required credential are left completely unexplained – the reference is misleading rather than additive.

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 only states a wait duration limit and a polling rule; it never says what is being waited on (presumably an order transition) or what condition ends the wait. Against siblings like get_order and get_run_result, an agent cannot tell from this text alone which one actually blocks for a state change.

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?

'单次最多等待15秒' plus '遵守 next_poll_after_ms，不无限轮询' implies a poll-then-backoff loop and warns against tight polling, which is genuine usage guidance. But it never says when to prefer this over get_order or what to do when the wait expires, so the alternative-selection guidance is absent.

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