job_wait

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call blocks ('Wait') and returns the job result, but says nothing about timeout behavior, whether it errors or returns partial state if wait_seconds elapses, or how it interacts with concurrent polling.

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 compact sentence with the action and the identifying precondition front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a blocking tool whose timeout semantics matter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a blocking wait tool the missing piece is what happens when the job does not finish within wait_seconds, which the description and schema both leave unaddressed.

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. It usefully explains where job_id comes from ('one that returned a job_id'), but wait_seconds is never mentioned in the description and the schema gives it only a title and a default of 50, leaving the blocking window and its implications undocumented.

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 (wait), the resource (a pending operation that returned a job_id), and the outcome (returns its result). That distinguishes it from polling siblings like status or call, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(one that returned a job_id)' implies the precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no named alternative such as status, and no guidance on repeated invocation or what to do if the wait expires.

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