wait_for_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses exponential backoff with parameters, jitter, terminal-state conditions, timeout returning status 'pending', and the auth requirement. There is no contradiction with structured data since annotations are absent.

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 compact, front-loads the core polling behavior, then tucks access/recovery guidance into a clearly labeled block. Every sentence provides actionable information with no redundant phrasing.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: terminal states, retry semantics, timeout behavior, and access setup. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and know what to expect on timeout. The only omission is the exact success response shape, which is not required absent an output schema.

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 schema already documents id and timeout_seconds thoroughly, including default/max and client-timeout warning; the description adds polling backoff behavior but not new parameter-specific meaning.

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 ('Poll') and resource ('a verification request') and defines the goal as reaching a terminal state with explicit states listed. This clearly separates it from get/list tools by signaling blocking behavior, despite not naming a sibling.

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 gives concrete operative guidance: when a verification request needs to be awaited, poll until completed/expired/cancelled, and on timeout call again with the same identifier. It also warns about prerequisites (Proof account and PROOF_API_KEY) and that start_login does not enable this tool. It does not explicitly compare against sibling polling tools, but that isn't needed because the resource scope is clear.

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