Wait for the person

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the default 120 s blocking behavior, but it does not disclose what happens on timeout (error, empty result, retry) or whether polling occurs — meaningful gaps for a blocking call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the default timeout is placed immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though 'structural result' is an unclear phrase that costs a little precision.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover both the `id` meaning and the timeout/return contract. It covers neither adequately, so an agent cannot reliably construct a call or anticipate failure behavior.

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 parameter meaning. It explains the timeout default (120 s) but says nothing about the required `id` — presumably the request identifier — leaving the one required parameter entirely undefined.

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 (waits) and resource (a pending request/approval) and notes the returned result, so an agent can tell it blocks until an approval completes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like secret_request or secret_list, and 'structural result' is vague jargon.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer that this is called after issuing a request, and nothing says what to do if the wait is unnecessary or how it relates to secret_request.

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