wait_for_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: exponential backoff parameters, terminal states, timeout semantics, retry guidance, and the side effect that a verified login keeps the session and signs account records. This is unusually transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organizes agent guidance, terminal states, and retry behavior into compact, purposeful sentences. 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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, this description tells an agent everything needed: when to call it, what statuses to expect, what each outcome means, and what to do on timeout. The side-effect explanation for 'verified' is especially valuable for a session-related tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining timeout_seconds' default, maximum, client-timeout interaction, and pending retry behavior, while also reinforcing that id comes from start_login.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a login session until the user completes authentication.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling wait_* tools by focusing on login sessions and explicitly tying it to start_login.

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?

It explicitly instructs agents to call this after start_login with the returned session ID, and it explains the pending-status retry behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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