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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds behavior those hints cannot convey: the 45-second ceiling, that it does not re-ask the human, that it is free, and that an "expired" status must be treated as a no with no further action. That is exactly the extra context the annotations leave open.

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?

Front-loads the core action and duration, then the call condition, then a compact status glossary. Every clause carries operational meaning (when to call, what each status means, what to do) with no filler.

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, so the description takes on the full burden of documenting returns and does so: it enumerates pending, answered (with answer and comment fields), expired, and cancelled, and states the required agent behavior for each. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both question_id and wait_seconds are already documented in the schema, including the 0-45 range and default. The description reinforces the wait ceiling and pending semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('wait ... for the human's answer to a question asked with ask_human') plus the scope ('up to 45 seconds') and the return ('its status'). This clearly separates it from ask_human (which asks) and cancel_question (which aborts), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit trigger: call it whenever ask_human or a previous wait_for_answer returned "pending", 'right away and as many times as needed.' It also gives the counter-condition ('the human may take minutes') that justifies repeated polling, and specifies what to do for each non-pending status.

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