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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals key behaviors: it blocks until completion, has a 300-second default wait, and reports partial progress if the timeout is reached. It does not mention error behavior or cancellation, but for a wait tool this is solid coverage.

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 core behavior, followed by usage context and timeout behavior. No redundant content; every sentence earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter tool, the description covers the main operational context: when to call it, default wait time, and behavior on timeout. It could note what happens if no job is running, but the existing detail is sufficient for most agent use.

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 compensate. It mentions the 300-second default but never explicitly connects the timeoutSec parameter to that default or explains how to override it. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value for the one 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 function: it waits until collection/check completes before responding. It names the exact preceding tools (parsee_parse_urls, parsee_parse_category, parsee_run_check) to invoke it after, distinguishing it from a blind status-polling approach.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call immediately after the three parsing/check tools. It implies the alternative is manually polling status, though it doesn't name parsee_status as the alternative tool, which would make the guidance fully explicit.

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