etabs_job_wait

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavior the annotations cannot express: this call can return before the job completes and must be re-issued, and the wait is bounded by timeout_seconds.

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, no filler, with the core action and the retry instruction front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, the description correctly does not enumerate return values and instead points at etabs_job_status for the shape, which is enough for a zero-required-parameter tool. The only small gap is not stating when to prefer this over polling etabs_job_status.

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 schema already explains job_id defaulting to the most recent job and timeout_seconds semantics including the max of 3600. The description's mention of timeout_seconds adds no detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (wait) and resource (background job), plus the blocking scope ('up to timeout_seconds'). It also anchors itself to a known sibling by noting the result has the same shape as etabs_job_status, so an agent can place it precisely among the job tools.

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?

'Call again if it is still running' gives explicit follow-up guidance for the timeout case, which is the main usage decision here. It implies but never explicitly contrasts with etabs_job_status (poll now vs. block), which is the one alternative an agent might weigh, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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