wait_for_approval

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

The description does disclose a core behavior beyond the name: it polls IMAP and blocks until the approval is approved, rejected, or times out. However, with no annotations provided the description carries the full burden, and it omits what happens on timeout (result vs. error), the read side effects of polling, and connectivity failure behavior.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler. The verb 'Poll' is front-loaded, and both the mechanism and the terminal states are stated in the fewest words possible.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description does not situate this tool in the approval flow: it never says that an approval must already exist (see request_human_approval), how from_address narrows the search, or what a timeout means for the agent. Given 4 required-ish parameters and 8 siblings, more context is needed.

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 compensate, but it does not explain approval_id or mention from_address, timeout_seconds, or poll_interval_seconds at all. The schema defaults (300s, 15s) hint at timing semantics, but the meaning and impact of from_address remain undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (Poll), a resource (IMAP, approval), and explicit termination conditions (approved, rejected, or times out). The blocking 'until ... times out' phrasing clearly distinguishes it from the one-shot sibling check_approval_status.

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?

No guidance is given as to when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention check_approval_status as the lightweight one-shot option, does not note that this call blocks, and does not say whether a prior request_human_approval call is required.

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