wait_for_verification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the 300-second timeout cap, that it returns the in-progress document on timeout, that the caller should re-invoke, and that 'no problems so far' is not clearance and inconclusive is not verified. Missing only whether the call blocks, and no rate-limit or auth context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then four tight sentences covering mode semantics, timeout behavior, retry guidance, and the inconclusive pitfall. Every sentence carries distinct information; the parenthetical warnings are high-value rather than filler.

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 6-parameter polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical behavioral contract (timeout, retry, terminal vs non-terminal states). It could say a bit more about what a verdict result contains, but it is largely self-sufficient.

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 a moderate 67%, and the description adds genuine semantics beyond it for the until enum (initial = 15-minute check, verdict = verified/failed/inconclusive) and the timeout_seconds cap. It adds little for the commit/latest/version/deployment_id selectors, which rest on schema descriptions.

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+resource: waits for a deployment's verification, with two distinct modes (initial check vs verdict). It is distinguishable from a one-shot get_verification in spirit, but the description never explicitly contrasts the two sibling tools, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Clear operational guidance: until=initial returns at the 15-minute initial check, until=verdict waits for a terminal state, and when timeout_seconds is hit you should call again while still in progress. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_verification or when to skip waiting entirely.

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