tosea_wait_for_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses the polling loop termination conditions (completed, failed, cancelled) and a specific nested status case. However, it does not address timeout behavior, error handling, or whether it makes multiple requests, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second adds an important conditional nuance. No extraneous information, perfectly 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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description lacks information about return values, possible statuses, error notifications, or how to interpret the poll result. For a polling tool, output details are essential for integration, but they are completely omitted.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (presentation_id, timeout_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, max_poll_interval_seconds). It does not explain their purpose, defaults, or constraints, which are critical for correct usage.

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 clearly states it polls a presentation job until completion, failure, or cancellation. It also provides a specific nuance about nested job status, which distinguishes it from sibling polling tools like tosea_wait_for_document_parse.

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 a concrete usage note about when to wait on data.job.status instead of top-level status, adding context for correct usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond the sibling tools.

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