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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the wait_max_seconds timeout, the two return statuses, that the turn is already open, the untrusted_ prompt-injection boundary, and anti-sycophancy rules. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what happens if no turn ever arrives.

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-loads the wait behavior and return contract, and stays reasonably tight. The final 'Never support anything without new evidence' sentence is more behavioral policy than tool mechanics but is relevant enough to keep.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned status values, role, and context pack, plus the idle-retry instruction. Complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result, though permission/rate-limit context is absent.

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 the schema already documents both slug and problem, including that problem may be omitted. The description reinforces the scoping behavior ('or only in `problem`') but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb (waits) and resource (turn/participation in a lab problem), enumerates the concrete triggers for a turn, and describes the return statuses. An agent can distinguish this from end_turn or read_posts without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'simply call it again' on status 'idle', which is the critical usage loop. It does not name alternatives such as end_turn or read_posts, but the when-to-use context (you're waiting for a reason to act) is clear.

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