Wait for a pending interview

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

Annotations already declare it a safe, non-open-world read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: it blocks/waiting is implied, it returns the same payload as ask_user_rich, and it short-circuits if the user already submitted. It omits timeout or failure semantics if the user never submits, which matters for a wait tool.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the pending-state condition is front-loaded before the return-value note. The parenthetical list of trigger conditions is dense but each item earns its place.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is nearly complete: it explains the return value equivalence to ask_user_rich and the early-return case. The only material omission is what happens on timeout or abandonment, which an agent waiting on a user would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents sessionId's origin and constraints, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the provenance (from ask_user_rich with delivery=link) but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 (a pending user interview submitted via ask_user_rich), and names the sibling tools it relates to, so the agent can distinguish it from ask_user_rich and append_questions directly.

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?

Enumerates the exact conditions that create a pending state (delivery=link, failed browser open, or an earlier call that stopped waiting), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' clause, but the trigger conditions are unambiguous.

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