Wait for a deployment

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: blocking duration bounds, the full outcome set (online/completed/failed/pending), and payload hints (ready URLs, logs, scheduler error). It reinforces idempotentHint by stating repeated calls are safe, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler. The blocking behavior and key parameter are front-loaded in sentence one, outcomes are compressed into a list-style sentence, and the safety note is a short clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description correctly takes on explaining return values: it enumerates all four outcomes and what each carries (URLs, logs, error, retry signal). Minor gaps - deployment_id is never explicitly defined and behavior for an invalid/nonexistent deployment_id is unaddressed - but for a simple two-parameter wait tool the essentials are covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains what max_seconds controls ('Blocks up to max_seconds') and its bounds, but deployment_id is never explicitly tied to a parameter - only implied by 'watches a deployment'. For a two-parameter tool this is partial compensation, not full.

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?

States a specific verb ('watches'/'bloks') and resource ('a deployment'), and the blocking behavior stands in clear opposition to sibling single-shot reads like get_deployment or get_deployment_events. The named outcome vocabulary makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from the get_* family.

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 gives useful context - it blocks up to a timeout, returns 'pending' for retry, and is safe to call repeatedly - which implies when an agent would want it. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings like get_deployment or get_job_result, nor gives exclusions (e.g., use a get_* tool when you don't want to block), so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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