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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations: it waits a bounded time and returns status. It does not contradict annotations. It does not disclose failure behavior or return format details, but for a simple wait operation this is adequate given the minimal annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the repeated-call safety note is directly relevant. Every phrase adds value.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what is returned. It says 'return its result' and 'tells you whether it is still running', which partially describes the output. However, it lacks specifics on return format, error handling, or what happens if the job never finishes. For a simple one-parameter tool, it is adequate but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the job_id parameter. The description mentions 'background job' but does not explicitly say that job_id identifies the job. The parameter is left to inference. This is a notable gap for a tool with a single required parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: waiting for a background job and returning its result. It provides concrete examples (render, tool call) and distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by being the only wait-related operation. The verb 'wait for' and resource 'background job' are specific.

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?

The description explicitly says it is 'safe to call repeatedly' and that each call 'waits a bounded time and tells you whether it is still running', giving clear guidance on repeated use. It implies usage after starting a background job, and since no sibling tool offers similar functionality, no exclusions are needed. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating when not to use it.

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