wait_for_account_creation

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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint, but the description adds substantial behavior: exponential backoff parameters, terminal states ("verified", "expired"), the meaning of "pending", session retention for the connection, and the `user_id` field in the terminal body. This goes well beyond what the annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then a clearly labeled 'Agent usage' block; every paragraph is actionable. The backoff internals (1.5x multiplier, jitter) are mildly decorative since only the 30s cap affects the agent's timeout choice, which is the only reason this is not a 5.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the terminal statuses and the identifying `user_id` field, and it covers retry semantics and the new-vs-existing-user equivalence. An agent has everything needed to call and re-call it correctly.

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%, so both `id` (from create_account) and `timeout_seconds` (range, default, client-timeout caveat) are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the id's provenance and the pending-on-timeout outcome but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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+resource ('Poll an account-bootstrap session until the user completes verification') and ties itself directly to its predecessor ('Call this after create_account with the returned session id'), which separates it from the many other wait_for_* siblings. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit about when to call it (after create_account, with the returned session id), what to do when the wait times out ('status "pending" ... call this tool again with the same id'), and even the pre-call UX prerequisite about surfacing the link/OTP to the user. Nothing is left to inference.

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