wait_for_job

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: a timeout or disconnect does not cancel the background power-on job, jobs do not survive service restarts, the capacity-shortage phase can be waited through, and 'active phase' means not finished. These are exactly the lifecycle/auth-adjacent caveats an agent needs and that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the purpose leads, followed by parameter semantics, retry-reporting guidance, and lifecycle caveats, each sentence carrying distinct information. Slightly passive-clause heavy but 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 a wait/polling tool with an output schema, it covers the important non-return-value facts: capacity-phase behavior, retry snapshot semantics, non-cancellation, and restart non-persistence. Adequate; only the meaning of job_id relative to the instance lifecycle is unstated.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: timeout_seconds range (0–300), default (15), and the 0-means-immediate case, plus return_on_capacity=False semantics and next_retry_in_seconds rounding/null behavior. Only job_id is left unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read-only wait on the current job until it ends, hits a capacity shortage, or times out, returning a snapshot. This distinguishes it from immediate-return siblings like job_status, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 usage behavior (report attempts/elapsed_seconds/next_retry_in_seconds after a shortage return; don't tightly repeat queries) and explains return_on_capacity, but offers no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-job_status/power_on routing for the agent.

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