Wait for a job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious polling contract and the duplicate-job hazard. It does not spell out what happens when the job fails or is cancelled, but that gap is modest given the annotated idempotency and the existing output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the retry rule and the anti-pattern. Every clause carries actionable information with no 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 an async polling tool the description covers purpose, retry behavior, and the main misuse risk, while the schema documents both parameters and an output schema exists for the return value. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so job_id and wait_seconds are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces job_id's reuse semantics across calls but adds nothing about wait_seconds, so 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?

"Waits for a job a makersmcp tool started and returns its result once it ends" gives a specific verb (waits) and resource (job started by a makersmcp tool), plus the outcome. The explicit warning not to re-run the originating tool separates it from the make_*/render_* siblings that an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 states the exact usage loop ("If it is still running, call this again with the same job_id") and an explicit when-not ("Never start the original tool again to check on a job: that starts a second one"). The agent needs no inference to know how to poll.

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