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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses the 25-second wait window, the snapshot behavior when no cursor is provided, the exact return content (active work_conversations, next_action, available_actions), the sequencing requirement before acknowledging notifications, and the free/no-inference property. No contradictions with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint are present.

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 yet compact, with every sentence adding a distinct piece of information: purpose, cursor semantics, return values, sequencing guidance, and operational constraints. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, return payload highlights, and key operational constraints, which is strong for a read-only wait tool with annotations. It lacks a full return schema or detailed error behavior, but with no output schema and a relatively simple parameter set, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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 67%, so the schema already documents cursor and agent_key. The description slightly adds meaning by explaining cursor behavior ('prevents missed changes' and 'omitting it for an immediate snapshot') and echoing the 25-second maximum for timeout_seconds. However, it does not fully compensate for the undocumented timeout_seconds semantics beyond the default and bounds, so it only partially goes beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool waits for state changes across a specific list of entity types (Work, Job, Conversation notifications, etc.) and returns active work_conversations. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like speedbot_activity, so while the purpose is clear, sibling differentiation relies on inference from the word 'wait' and the snapshot fallback.

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?

The description gives practical usage context: use a private cursor to avoid missed changes, omit the cursor for an immediate snapshot, read current entities and hand off before acknowledging notifications, and note the one-wait-per-agent constraint. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of specific siblings, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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