wait_for_chat_id_discovery

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds genuinely new behavior: exponential backoff parameters (2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max, jitter), the client-timeout interaction and re-call-on-pending semantics, the requirement for a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY, and the warning that tool results are folded away by most clients.

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-loaded with the core operation and backoff characteristics, then layered with usage and access notes. Every paragraph carries actionable content, though the paragraph about tool results being hidden is about agent reply composition rather than this tool specifically and slightly dilutes focus.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the terminal status values, the pending/timeout case, the credentials prerequisite, and the surrounding call sequence. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so both token and timeout_seconds are already fully documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's polling advice restates the timeout behavior rather than adding format or value semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 (poll/wait) and resource (chat ID discovery token) plus the terminating condition (user interacts with the Telegram bot). It clearly separates itself from create_chat_id_discovery, but does not explain how it differs from the near-identically named sibling poll_chat_id_discovery, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Gives an explicit ordered workflow: call after create_chat_id_discovery, present deep_link with render_auth_link, then poll with the returned token. It also enumerates terminal states (completed/expired) and the meaning of pending, so the agent knows what to do in every outcome.

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