Wait for a dub

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

Annotations already tell the agent this is a read-only, open-world operation, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it is blocking, capped at 240 seconds, returns the latest status rather than failing when the job is still running, and is designed to be called repeatedly. It stops short of describing what the returned status looks like or any cost/latency of repeated calls.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core behavior and the retry rule front-loaded, and no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations about return shape, the description does state what comes back ('the latest status') and distinguishes running from finished states. It could go one step further by enumerating terminal statuses or noting that the return shape differs between running and completed cases, but it is sufficient to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 50% — dub_id is documented in the schema, timeout_seconds only by its default/min/max bounds. The description adds meaning for timeout_seconds by framing it as the maximum wait and confirming the 240 ceiling, but it does not clarify granularity, the minimum of 5, or what happens at the boundary.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — waiting on a dub until it completes or fails — which is clearly distinct from one-shot reads like get_dub or list_dubs. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the polling semantics ('call it again to keep waiting') make the role unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use this when you need to block until a dub finishes, and re-invoke if it is still running. There is no explicit 'do not use this for a single status check, use get_dub instead' guidance, nor any note on when a blocking wait is preferable to polling manually.

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