Wait for assessment

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

Goes well beyond annotations (which only cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive) by disclosing exponential backoff, the timeout budget concept, and the partial-result behavior (ready:false plus last observed status). It also names the required scope, assessments:read. It doesn't describe the ready:true payload, which matters since there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the wait condition, then implementation behavior, then the retry pattern. No filler sentences.

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?

Covers the wait semantics, idempotent re-invocation, and auth scope, which is most of what an agent needs for a two-parameter async wait tool. Missing pieces are the shape of a successful return (no output schema exists) and its relationship to air_start_assessment / air_run_assessment_from_file in a longer workflow.

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 50%: timeoutMs already carries default/max in the schema and the description only restates it as the wait bound. For assessmentPid the description adds that reusing the same value continues the same wait, which is useful semantics, but gives no format or source for the PID. Roughly baseline-level.

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+resource (wait for assessment) and enumerates the terminal conditions it waits on: completed, failed, reportAvailable. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling air_wait_for_document_extraction, but an agent can still tell what resource this operates on.

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 follow-up guidance: if the budget runs out with ready:false, call again with the same assessmentPid to keep waiting. It doesn't state when to prefer this over polling air_get_assessment/air_list_assessments, so alternatives are left implicit.

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