Wait for jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds real behavior: early return on all-done or first failure, the need to re-invoke for pending jobs, the meaning of an 'unknown' id, and that the call is free. It does not mention the upper bound on waiting time, which is a minor omission given the schema declares it.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and ending with the failure/diagnosis note and cost. No filler and every clause carries usable information.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: waiting semantics, early-exit conditions, re-polling, and unknown-id diagnosis. The only gap is the absence of any guidance on the wait-duration parameter.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies job_ids as the listed jobs of any type and explains the consequence of an unrecognized id, but max_wait_seconds is never mentioned, leaving the wait-control parameter documented only by its schema bounds.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Wait until the listed jobs finish ... report each one's status') and explicitly scopes it to 'any job type', which distinguishes it from the single-job sibling get_job. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not state outright that polling a single job should use get_job instead.

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?

It gives concrete call-again guidance ('Returns early when all are done or one fails; call again if some are still processing') and routes the agent to get_job for ids that stay 'unknown'. What is missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer get_job or how often to re-poll.

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