waitForReply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key trait that this is a blocking monitor that returns messages when detected. However, it omits critical behavior: the timeout's unit/scale (the schema default of 10800000 is almost certainly 3 hours), what happens when the timeout expires, and whether the call blocks the session.

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 the core action. The second sentence partly restates the first ('monitors... returns them when detected' overlaps 'wait for new email replies'), a minor redundancy.

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 a blocking long-poll tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is thin. It should at minimum clarify timeout units, default behavior, and the result on timeout expiry, none of which appear.

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. It alludes to both parameters (folder, timeout) but adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names — no unit for timeout, no note that folder defaults to INBOX, no format for the folder identifier.

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?

States a specific verb (wait for) and resource (new email replies) plus the scope (specific folder, timeout period). It is clearly distinguishable from the send/list/search siblings, though it never names or contrasts with them.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. An agent cannot tell whether to call this instead of listEmails/searchEmails polling, nor under what circumstances a blocking wait is appropriate.

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