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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, and the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: a 25-second timeout bound and the re-invocation pattern to continue waiting. It still doesn't say what the 'summary' contains or what happens if the draft never finishes.

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, zero waste, with the timeout constraint and the polling instruction front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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-param polling tool with no output schema, the timeout and re-call behavior are the critical facts and both are present. What 'summarizes the tour' returns is left vague, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists to document it.

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% and the schema itself explains the tour_id format and its source (create_tour or list_tours). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific action (wait for a draft to finish) plus a secondary effect (summarize the tour), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_tour or draft_tour, which is the only missing element for a 5.

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 a clear polling pattern, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_tour/draft_tour or what precondition (a draft must be in flight) is required.

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