wait_for_login

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the 25-second wait cap, the polling-loop contract, the 'waiting'/'saved' state semantics, and an explicit negative scope. It stops short of enumerating other possible states (failure, expiry) or how they surface, which keeps it at 4.

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, front-loaded on the wait duration and followed by the two outcome branches. Every clause carries operational instruction; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 return states it names, the control-flow response to each, and the prohibited actions. The only gap is that it does not say what to do on terminal non-success outcomes (failure/expiry), leaving an agent without a branch for those cases.

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 carry both parameters, and it only partly does. 'the start_login attempt' implies login_id comes from start_login, and 'up to 25 seconds' loosely maps to wait_seconds' default/maximum, but neither parameter is explained directly and the 1–25 range is never mentioned. Baseline 3 for a 2-param tool with no schema prose.

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 and resource ('wait up to 25 seconds for the start_login attempt') and anchors itself to a named sibling (start_login), so an agent can distinguish it from get_service_status, get_balance and the rest of the login lifecycle without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditional routing: on 'waiting', re-call with the same login_id and do not end the reply; on 'saved', verify via get_service_status/get_balance and resume the original request. It also states what it must NOT be used for (open a page, submit generation, retry a paid request), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance needed.

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