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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the wait is time-bounded ('up to timeout_ms'), but says nothing about what happens on expiry, whether the call blocks the agent, or the retry/replay semantics that the schema mentions.

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 the verb first and the timeout constraint last. No filler and nothing redundant.

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, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description covers the wait target and the timeout bound; the only remaining gap is the timeout-expiry outcome, which is a minor omission for this tool class.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including mode, operation_id and after_return_id. The description only echoes the timeout concept and the kinds of payloads awaited, adding little 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 the resource it waits for (the person's next selection, message or returned page), which is a clear blocking-wait semantic. It is distinguishable from siblings like document.create_return or document.apply_edits, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a genuine use condition: call it 'when the next step is theirs.' That is clear context for a blocking handoff tool, but no exclusions or named alternatives are offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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