wait_for_index_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool blocks, polls server-side, and terminates on done/failed/cancelled or timeout, which are key behaviors. It does not, however, describe what happens after timeout (e.g., returns a status or throws an error) or the exact return value, leaving a minor gap.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core action ('Block until...') and then add the polling detail and usage context. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple wait tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage. However, it omits what happens on timeout (return vs. error) and does not describe the return value format, which is a meaningful gap given that the output schema is absent. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 for missing parameter explanations. The description does not clarify job_id (where it comes from) or timeout_s beyond the default. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning, and the lack of guidance on the source or format of job_id is a notable omission.

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 the tool's action: it blocks until an index job reaches done/failed/cancelled or a timeout. The verb 'block' and the resource 'index job' are specific, and the terminal states are enumerated. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_index_job, which would check status without blocking, so the purpose is 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?

The description explicitly provides a usage condition: 'Use this when you want a synchronous index call.' This tells the agent when to select this tool over the asynchronous alternatives. However, it does not name specific alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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