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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real behavior: the long-poll waits up to waitSeconds (default 8, cap 20) and returns null on timeout. It also explains the seq-based incremental polling model with 'after'. It does not discuss auth failure or invalid-pass behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its wait semantics, then the call pattern, then the return payload, then the sibling routing. The long enumeration of report fields earns its length because no output schema exists.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (mech state, contacts, enemy or estimate, alerts, round state, orders) and the null-on-timeout case. For a read-only polling tool with fully covered parameters, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter including pass, after, pilotKey and waitSeconds is already documented in structured form. The description restates waitSeconds bounds and the pass/after pairing in a usage frame, which helps slightly but adds little factual content beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Wait for the next report ... and return it" states a specific verb (wait/return) and resource (report), then enumerates the report's contents so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly distinguished from the nearby sibling act ("act does this and more in one call; prefer act").

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 the calling pattern explicitly (send pass and after, the seq of the last report you saw) and names the alternative tool with a preference rule: prefer act since it does this and more. That is a concrete when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else signal.

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