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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the 25-second internal timeout and the resumable polling behavior — details an agent could not infer from the 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the 25-second bound is front-loaded so the agent learns the timing constraint first.

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?

There is no output schema and the description never says what a call returns or how the agent learns whether payment succeeded versus merely timed out. The polling loop is described but the success/failure signal is not, which is the main remaining gap for an agent.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including its format (12 hex characters) and source tools. The description adds no additional meaning about space_id, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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), a concrete resource and mode (Stripe Checkout payment), a precise bound (up to 25 seconds), and two triggering scenarios (first payment vs. publishing a free preview). This clearly separates it from sibling wait_for_tour, though it never names that sibling 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?

'Call it again to keep waiting' gives explicit retry/polling guidance, which is the key usage pattern for a polling tool. However, it does not say when to start calling it relative to space_status or create_space, nor when to stop versus continue polling.

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