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

Annotations only cover safety metadata, but the description adds rich behavior: blocking up to timeout_seconds, returning as soon as feedback arrives or empty on timeout, ordering rules for recordings and newer feedback, pending recordings, and the fact that the caller's own posts are excluded.

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?

The description is dense but front-loads the core purpose and then layers in timeout behavior, pending handling, continuous listening, and alternative routing. It repeats some schema details like the default timeout, but most sentences carry distinct behavioral information.

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 blocking wait tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential agent decisions: what triggers a return, what empty means, how to continue listening, how pending items are handled, and which sibling to use instead. Nothing critical 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 the schema already documents asset_id, since, and timeout_seconds in detail. The description adds useful operational context beyond the schema, such as passing next_since from the previous response and refusing folder ids, though much of the parameter guidance is already present in the schema.

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: waiting for NEW feedback on an asset. It clearly scopes the result to comments and replies by others, excluding the caller's own posts, and distinguishes itself from siblings like feedback_list, feedback_get, and recent_activity.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: use after uploading a video instead of repeatedly calling feedback_list, use feedback_get for pending items, call again with next_since to listen continuously, and use recent_activity(folder_id) when a folder id is refused. Alternatives and when-not conditions are directly stated.

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