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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it is long-polling, ends on confirmation, expiry, or timeout, and explains how eligible recipients are counted under any vs. all. No contradictions with the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first packs the core behavior plus confirmation semantics, and the second routes to the alternative. No filler, front-loaded with the key verb and object.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description explains the polling lifecycle, confirmation rules, and the main sibling alternative. It leaves out details like what the return payload contains, but the output schema is expected to cover that, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 effectively 100% (notification_id is clearly documented, timeout has a semantic description including 0 meaning immediate read). The description reinforces the timeout behavior in context but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Long-poll'), a clear resource ('acknowledgement-required ping'), and precise termination conditions. It also distinguishes itself from wait_for_answer, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 gives explicit routing guidance with 'Questions use wait_for_answer instead,' which is the key exclusion an agent needs. It also clarifies the any/all confirmation modes, but it does not contrast with other wait_for_* siblings like wait_for_notification or wait_for_approval, so some situational ambiguity remains.

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