Wait for cooperation notifications

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), the description adds real behavioral context: the wait is asynchronous and cancellable, it is non-consuming, it does not renew claims or heartbeats, and it will not start an idle host model. That is material for an agent deciding whether to block on this call. There is mild tension between 'non-consuming' and readOnlyHint=false, but 'completes an active call' plausibly explains the non-read-only hint, so this is not an outright contradiction.

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 action and then the operational caveats; each sentence carries distinct information (cancellability, cursor resumption, host-wake limitation). Slightly cryptic phrasing in the first sentence costs it a point, but there is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values (next_cursor, has_more, timed_out, service_epoch) need not be described here, and the rich schema covers inputs. The description supplies the blocking/wait semantics an agent needs. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation, which limits it to a 4 rather than a 5.

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%, and the nested request object already documents protocol, repository_id, participant_id, capability, subject_id, after_cursor, limit, timeout_seconds, and the byte/size limits. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline of 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?

The opening sentence names a recognizable action (long-poll wait for private notification events bounded by a timeout), but 'Complete an active call when private events arrive' is jargon-heavy and reads oddly for a wait primitive. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings like cooperation_receive, cooperation_read, or cooperation_request_status, so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.

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?

The description implies usage through operational constraints ('Resume from the durable cursor after reconnect', 'zero polls' semantics via the schema, and the explicit note that it never wakes an idle host model). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus the other cooperation_* tools, leaving selection to inference.

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