Wait briefly for a SpicyAPI task

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals concrete behavior: adaptive backoff from about 2 to 10 seconds, fixed intervalSeconds when provided, direct URL access, and non-cancellation on local timeout. There is no contradiction with 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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying new information: primary behavior, polling details, production alternative, and timeout caveat. The most important action is front-loaded.

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?

Annotations and output schema cover safety and return shape, and the description covers polling, timeout, and alternatives. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns if the timeout elapses or the task fails, which is a notable edge case for a wait tool, but the remaining guidance is strong.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates by defining timeout up to 300 seconds and explaining intervalSeconds' fixed versus adaptive behavior. It does not restate taskId, though that parameter is self-evident from the tool name and required field.

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 first sentence names a specific action and resource: wait for a task for up to 300 seconds and read ready output.assets[].url directly. It also distinguishes itself from sibling download-ticket and task_get flows by noting that no download-ticket call is needed.

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 explicit routing guidance: use this to poll and read output directly, skip the download-ticket call, prefer signed webhooks in production, and rely on a verified v2 callback rather than an extra task_get. The note that a local timeout does not cancel the task also tells the agent what not to assume after a timeout.

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