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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful facts that this call blocks until completion and is 'Free,' but says nothing about timeout behavior or what happens when the poll times out.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the blocking action, with no filler. It is tight, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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/polling tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description omits the essential polling contract: timeout behavior, retry semantics, and expected return. An agent cannot safely call it without guessing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for job_id, timeout_ms, and poll_interval_ms, and it explains none of them. The names are fairly self-explanatory, but timeout and poll-interval semantics (units, what happens on expiry) are undocumented in both places.

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 clear verb+resource: wait for a scrape job to finish, then return it. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling getScrapeJob, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus getScrapeJob or the other scrape tools. The single word 'Free' hints at a cost consideration but leaves the alternative-selection decision entirely to inference.

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