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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot express: the 45-second block ceiling, the timed_out flag and the retry loop, and the critical caveat that a `failed` status means CheckMyApp did not finish rather than the app being broken. That last sentence prevents a serious misreading of the result and is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 sentences, all front-loaded with the highest-value information: what it returns, how the wait loop works, and the failure-mode caveat. The parenthetical return-field list is dense but earns its place by compensating for the absent output schema. Nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing the return value and does so concretely (bottom line, findings by severity, verdict URL, price_usd, journeys_walked, steps_walked, price_explanation). It also covers the timeout/retry contract and the meaning of a failed status, so an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 both `team` and `run_id` are already fully documented in the schema, including the accepted "#332" number format. The description adds no meaning beyond that for either parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Wait for a run to finish") and enumerates what comes back (verdict, findings by severity, verdict URL, price fields). It is unambiguous on its own, but it never names the obvious siblings — get_check_status, latest_results, or wait_for_review — so an agent must infer the boundary from those tools' own definitions.

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?

It clearly explains the polling contract: each call blocks up to 45 seconds and returns timed_out: true if the run is still going, in which case you call it again. That is real when-to-use guidance for the blocking path. What is missing is routing guidance against the non-blocking alternative (get_check_status) and against wait_for_review, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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