network_wait_for_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: event-driven/no polling, immediate return for pre-existing matches, and a timeout failure mode. This goes well beyond the schema details.

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 blocking behavior, then edge cases and failure mode. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 wait mechanism, when to call, the already-completed case, and timeout failure. Although there is no output schema, the description clearly says it returns the matched request; the exact request structure is reasonably implied by the network tool family.

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%, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces url_filter and timeout_ms but does not add meaning for method or allow_existing beyond what the schema already documents.

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 operation: block until a matching network request completes, then return it. The 'Block until...' phrasing clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools like network_get_requests and network_get_response_body.

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 call timing ('immediately AFTER triggering the action') and covers the edge case of an already-completed request. It does not name alternative tools for non-wait scenarios, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is clear.

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