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

Annotations only cover the read-only/non-destructive safety profile; the description adds substantial traits beyond that: bounded server-side window, progress notifications emitted during the wait, `stillRunning` semantics on timeout, that re-invoking continues waiting, and how partial/failed runs are handled. This is exactly the operational context an annotations-only view lacks.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the return-shape and edge-case details. Dense but every sentence carries information (notifications, stillRunning, re-call continuation, partial runs). Slightly sprawling for a two-parameter tool, but nothing is filler.

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?

Covers the return contract (message, phase, results, resultsMarkdown), the timeout path, the continuation pattern, and degraded-run behavior, which is more than enough given an output schema already exists. An agent has everything needed to call and re-call it correctly.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It explains maxWaitSeconds ('shortens a single wait') but does not define testId beyond implication. One of two parameters gets real semantics added, leaving an unmet gap against the low coverage baseline.

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 (server-side wait for a usability test to finish) plus the mechanism (progress notifications, no polling). It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_test_results and get_test_status by being the blocking-wait variant. An agent can select it without opening a schema.

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 usage context: 'so no polling is needed', 'long runs are normal', and 'calling wait_for_results again continues waiting' — behaviorally important for an agent choosing between waiting and polling. However it never explicitly names get_test_status as the non-blocking alternative or states when NOT to wait (e.g. for a quick status check).

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