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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world) by disclosing that the call blocks, the exact terminal statuses ('answered' with answer and optional note, 'expired', or 'timedOut: true'), the default and maximum timeout values, and the retry semantics for continuing to wait. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before making a blocking call.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the blocking behavior, then return values, then the timeout/retry rule, then the safety directive. No redundant or filler wording; every clause carries actionable 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values and does so completely (three possible outcomes plus the answer/note payload). Combined with the timeout guidance and the do-not-proceed rule, nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool 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 50% — the schema documents 'id' but leaves timeoutSeconds bare. The description compensates by stating the default (25) and the hard maximum (30) for timeoutSeconds, which is the key constraint an agent would otherwise guess wrong on. It does not restate the id semantics, but the schema already covers that.

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 effect ('Block until your human answers an ask_human request'), tying the tool directly to the ask_human sibling and making clear this is the wait half of that pair rather than the request half. An agent can distinguish it from wait_for_email/wait_for_sms/wait_for_webhook by the 'human' subject.

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 clear context for use: it follows an ask_human request, it should be re-called to keep waiting after a timeout, and it explicitly warns 'Do not proceed without an answer.' It does not spell out a when-not case (e.g., what to do if ask_human was never called), but the usage path is unambiguous.

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