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

Annotations already declare it a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior the annotations do not: the per-call cap of 30 seconds and the aggregate 60-second cap per run, which directly affects retry-loop design.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the action and limit first, the selection condition second, the cumulative constraint third. No filler or repetition.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, hard limits, and when to invoke 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 coverage is 100% and every parameter (seconds, reason, in_workspace) is documented in the schema with its own description and range. The description restates the 30-second maximum already stated in the schema, adding no new semantics, 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 and resource: 'Pause execution for a given number of seconds (max 30).' The scope and limit are immediately clear, though it never distinguishes itself from sibling wait-style tools such as browser_wait_for or calls_wait, which an agent might otherwise consider.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when you need to wait for an external process to complete before retrying,' with concrete examples (message sync, backfill, API propagation). It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for X, use Y instead' exclusion, but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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