wait_for_job

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read), so the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing a hard 600 s cap and the intent to wait rather than poll repeatedly. It does not describe return shape, but an output schema exists. Minor tension: the cap (600 s) sits alongside an undocumented timeout_seconds default of 120, leaving their interaction unexplained.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the hard constraint front-loaded, and the fallback alternative appended. No filler, though it could have used one clause to name the key parameters.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and usage + the time cap are covered. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the total silence on parameters (especially timeout vs. the stated 600 s cap) leaves a gap an agent must guess at.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, yet it mentions none of job_id, poll_seconds, or timeout_seconds and does not explain polling cadence or how timeout interacts with the cap. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Attend qu'un job se termine' / wait for a job to finish) and immediately bounds the behavior with a strict ceiling. It is clearly distinct from a plain status check, though the differentiation from siblings is carried mostly by the usage sentence rather than the purpose statement itself.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('seulement pour un job court' / only for a short job) and an explicit alternative plus condition ('sinon reviens interroger job_status' / otherwise poll job_status). The routing decision is unambiguous and names the sibling directly.

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