Wait for Governed Job

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that a timeout returns the latest state and never resubmits the business action, clarifying timeout semantics and reinforcing idempotency beyond the annotation hints.

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?

The description consists of two short, front-loaded sentences that state the primary action and timeout behavior with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple wait tool.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the wait behavior, timeout result, and non-resubmission guarantee, but does not explicitly describe successful return values; however, the mention of 'latest state' partially addresses the return concept.

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?

Both parameters have complete schema descriptions, including job_id's origin and max_wait_seconds bounds. The description itself adds no new parameter-level detail beyond mentioning a bounded period, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly states the tool polls a BailingHub job for a bounded period, using the specific verb 'poll' and resource 'BailingHub job'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (submit_governed_job and get_governed_job) by emphasizing bounded waiting and non-resubmission.

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 implies usage after submitting a job to wait for its completion, contrasting with get_governed_job by highlighting bounded polling and no resubmission. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling context makes the intended use clear.

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