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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior: timeout results in a successful changed=false, and the return includes text, revision, and changed. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: the wait condition, the return values, the timeout semantics, and the alternative for intermediate changes. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior (blocking, timeout, return values) and mentions an alternative. The output schema exists, so return details are not strictly required. However, it doesn't explicitly state that timeout_seconds is a configurable parameter or explain the key parameter, which a user might need to infer.

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 must explain parameters. It explains after_revision ('newer than after_revision') and implies timeout_seconds via the 30-second cap, but it never mentions the key parameter or its purpose. This leaves a gap for the board identifier.

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 clearly states the action (wait for a revision newer than after_revision) and the resource (a board revision). It also mentions what it returns. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like read or read_revision, but the blocking/timeout nature is evident.

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?

The description gives a clear alternative: 'Use events to read every intermediate change,' which implies when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention when to prefer read or read_revision over wait, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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