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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important traits: the 25-second blocking cap and the fact that the call is a poll that must be repeated. It does not say what a completed vs timed-out call yields, but the retry semantics are the key behavior and are stated.

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 tight sentences, the timeout duration front-loaded, and the polling rule last. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

For a single-parameter wait/poll tool with no annotations and no output schema, the essential information (duration, retry behavior, applicable scenarios) is present. Only the outcome of a completed or timed-out wait is left unspecified, a minor gap.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents space_id as a 12-hex-character ID sourced from create_space or space_status. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the 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), a bounded scope (up to 25 seconds), and the exact resource/event (the person finishing payment in Stripe Checkout). The dual trigger contexts (first payment or publish free preview) and the name versus the sibling wait_for_tour make it unambiguous which wait tool to pick.

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 clear when-to-use context (after checkout, either for a first payment or to publish a free preview) and an explicit polling instruction: 'Call it again to keep waiting.' It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing at wait_for_tour as the alternative, so it is not a full 5.

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