Esperar firma completada

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions polling behavior and that signed=true yields verifyUrl, but does not disclose error conditions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on timeout or with the 'accountOnly' parameter.

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 is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second gives key usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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, the description mentions the verifyUrl on success, which is helpful. However, it does not describe error handling, the role of all parameters (e.g., documentId, pollIntervalSeconds), or the overall response structure. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The schema has 83% coverage, and the description adds meaning by linking parameters to the output of 'kairo_get_sign_url', clarifying that 'since', 'externalRequestId', and 'accountOnly' come from that function. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 it polls until the document is signed or timeout, with a specific verb 'poll' and resource 'document'. The name 'kairo_wait_for_signature' is also descriptive, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kairo_wait_for_external_bundle'.

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 advises using the 'waitParams' from 'kairo_get_sign_url', providing some context on when to use it (after obtaining sign URL). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives (e.g., when to use other wait tools).

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