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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the blocking behavior, timeout semantics, exact return shape including the timeout case, auth requirements, and error codes. This fully informs the agent of the side-effect profile and failure modes.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core blocking behavior and return shape first, then auth and error details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the essential return contract, timeout behavior, auth prerequisites, and failure codes. The polling interval parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the wrapper relationship provides enough context for correct invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each param, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that appId must match the auth used at enqueue time and that errors 401/403/404 map to auth and jobId issues, which goes beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 specific verb ('Block'), a precise resource ('broadcast job'), and the terminal condition, and it explicitly names the underlying sibling it wraps. An agent can clearly distinguish this wait/polling tool from the raw job status tool and from other wait tools in the sibling list.

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?

It clearly says this is a read-only polling wrapper to block until completion or timeout, and it notes the auth mode must match the one used to enqueue the job. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of polling ethora-chats-broadcast-job-v2', but the wrapper framing and return-signal description make the usage context clear.

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