Wait for a specified duration

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destrutiveHint=false. The description adds the 600-second limit and clarifies that execution is paused, but it does not describe the return behavior or whether the call blocks synchronously; with the annotations carrying safety, a mid-level score is appropriate.

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 sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded, followed by a concise usage note. Every sentence contributes, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter utility with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it gives the action, the maximum delay, and the intended use case. The only gap is the absence of return-value or completion information, and there is no output schema to cover that.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter fully, including the maximum, so there are no hidden parameters for the description to explain. The description repeats the max limit but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline for 100% schema coverage 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 description names a specific action - pause execution for a duration - and includes a hard cap of 600 seconds, so an agent clearly knows what the tool does. It differentiates the tool from a generic sleep server but does not explicitly reference sibling tools by name, so it stops short of full distinction among siblings.

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 explicitly says to use the tool between polling calls, which is concrete when-to-use guidance. It also frames the tool as an alternative to a separate sleep MCP server, giving the agent a clear alternative and rationale.

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