Wait for Users Batch Job

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations: blocking semantics, terminal states, timeout behavior, return shape, auth matching requirement, and error codes (401/403, 404). This is far more than what annotations alone provide, making the tool's behavior very transparent.

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 dense but well-structured: core behavior first, then return format, then requirements and errors. Each sentence carries useful information, though it is a bit long. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and does not waste words.

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 polling wrapper with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: how it blocks, what it returns, prerequisites, auth, and errors. It does not explain the job states (completed/failed) in detail, but those are implied. It also doesn't mention intervalMs, but that's in the schema. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 jobId, timeoutMs, and intervalMs with defaults and ranges. The description repeats the jobId origin and timeout behavior but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema states. Thus, it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Block until a users batch job reaches a terminal state' with specific resource (users batch job). It distinguishes itself as a read-only polling wrapper around ethora-users-batch-job-v2, and the return shape is explicit. This differentiates it from the underlying job tool and other wait tools.

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?

Provides the prerequisite: a jobId from ethora-users-batch-create-v2, and the auth mode required. It implies this is the tool to use when you want to block until completion, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like directly calling ethora-users-batch-job-v2 or ethora-wait-broadcast-job-v2. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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