wait_for_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is blocking, polls at regular intervals, terminates on completion or error, and can run 10+ minutes. It omits what happens on hitting max_wait (timeout behavior) and permissions, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, blocking/mechanism second, cost warning third. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what the tool returns on success (final job status only, or results), and it does not. The behavioral narrative is adequate for a single blocking call, but the return contract is left undefined.

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 100%, so the schema already documents job_id, max_wait, server_type, and poll_interval with defaults and an enum. The description only adds the vague notion of 'regular intervals' for polling, which the schema covers better, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Wait for an antiSMASH job to complete by polling its status'), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling check_job_status, which by name performs an analogous status check, so the agent must infer the blocking vs. non-blocking difference.

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?

'Use with caution as antiSMASH analysis can take 10+ minutes' gives implicit guidance about when the blocking cost is justified, but no alternative (e.g., check_job_status for non-blocking polling) is named. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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