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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's remaining burden is light. It clarifies that the listed entities represent paused runs, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or rate limits beyond what the schema's cursor/pageSize params imply.

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 compact sentences and the resource is front-loaded. The endpoint reference is slightly redundant for an agent, but the whole description is short and waste-free.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description arguably should sketch the return shape (token fields, pagination envelope), and it does not. For a simple two-optional-param read tool whose params are fully documented, this is adequate but leaves the response format unspecified.

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 100% (after and pageSize are both documented with bounds and purpose), so the schema carries full parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 ('List outstanding waitpoint tokens') and adds a conceptual gloss ('runs paused waiting for an external signal') plus the underlying API route. An agent immediately knows what this returns. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but no sibling covers waitpoints, so the gap is minor.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among the trigger_* siblings. Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement itself.

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