wait_for_chat_id_discovery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it delivers: it discloses the backoff algorithm ('2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max with jitter'), semantics of each terminal state, the pending/timeout retry behavior ('a longer wait is cut off by the client while the server is still polling'), and the auth prerequisite (PROOF_API_KEY, server restart, start_login does not open the tool). This is precisely the non-obvious context an agent needs.

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?

The description is dense but every clause earns its place: backoff parameters, terminal-state semantics, the orchestration flow, the auth blocker, and the start_login exclusion. The labeled sections ('Agent usage:', 'ACCESS:') make it scannable, and the core behavior is front-loaded in the opening sentence. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers almost everything an agent needs to call it correctly: the triggering workflow, retry loop, terminal states, downstream use of the discovered chat_id, and access requirements. The one notable gap is that the response shape for 'completed' is not described beyond the terminal state name — an agent doesn't know the exact field name holding the chat_id.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema already documents token provenance ('Discovery token from create_chat_id_discovery') and the timeout_seconds behavior in detail, including the default, max, and client-timeout caveat. The description adds marginal cross-references ('poll with the returned token') but does not materially extend what the schema already states.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a chat ID discovery token until the user interacts with the Telegram bot.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_chat_id_discovery (token creation), poll_chat_id_discovery (single poll), and render_auth_link (link rendering). The terminal states ('completed', 'expired', 'pending') further pin down what the tool accomplishes.

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?

The 'Agent usage' paragraph gives an explicit workflow: call after create_chat_id_discovery, present the deep_link via render_auth_link first, then poll with the returned token. It also provides an explicit exclusion: 'start_login does NOT open this tool.' It falls short of a 5 only because it never contrasts with the closest sibling, poll_chat_id_discovery, to explain when the blocking wait variant is preferred over a one-shot poll.

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