wait_for_verification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses exponential backoff parameters, jitter, terminal-state semantics, the special meaning of cancelled/revoked, timeout behavior, and the need for a Proof account. This is unusually transparent for a polling tool.

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 sentence earns its place: purpose, backoff behavior, terminal-state nuance, timeout retry guidance, and access setup. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the terminal states, what happens on timeout, the wait-and-retry model, and the access requirement. For a tool whose main complexity is polling semantics and auth, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters at 100%, including the default, min/max, and client-timeout warning for timeout_seconds. The description adds useful polling context but no additional per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 object: 'Poll a verification until it reaches a terminal state,' and enumerates the exact terminal states. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_verification, wait_for_login, or wait_for_request by identifying the resource and the polling behavior.

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 description provides clear context: use this when you must wait for a verification to reach a final state, and call it again on timeout with the same identifier. It also gives access prerequisites and warns that start_login does not unlock this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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