Wait for event

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world. Beyond that the description adds real behavioral detail: a 3-second poll interval, timeout default/max, and the crucial nuance that timed_out=true means still-running rather than failed. It doesn't describe pagination or full return shape, which keeps it below 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then timeout semantics, then the safety caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter read-only poll with no output schema, the description supplies return semantics (last state, waited_seconds, timed_out meaning), timing behavior, and id provenance. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both id and timeout_seconds including the default. The description only adds the polling cadence and the 'same ids as get_event' linkage; useful but marginal over structured data, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it polls an asynchronous action until completion, error, or timeout. The phrase 'Same ids as get_event' pins its relationship to the sibling retrieval tool, so an agent can distinguish waiting from fetching without opening either schema.

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 makes clear this is the tool to block on an in-flight async action and positions it against get_event, which shares the same ids. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use (e.g. use get_event for a single non-blocking check), stopping short of a 5.

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