Wait for a deployment to become ready

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: polling behavior, backoff, timeout handling, and that it reports container error detail on failure. This is more than the annotations provide, though it doesn't specify exact timeout semantics beyond the 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is compact and direct. Every clause serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: what triggers it, what it does while polling, what it returns on success, and what happens on failure (error detail). An agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds the key contextual meaning that request_id comes from edgegap_deploy, which is not in the schema. This extra clarification goes beyond the schema's field descriptions, justifying a score above the baseline 3.

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 states a precise verb ('poll') and resource ('deployment'), and the outcome ('return the connection details'). It explicitly positions itself relative to edgegap_deploy and mentions that it handles backoff, which distinguishes it from a generic status check like edgegap_get_deployment.

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?

It clearly says 'This is the tool to call right after edgegap_deploy' and instructs 'Do not build your own polling loop', giving an explicit when-to-use and a when-not-to alternative. This leaves no ambiguity about the intended context.

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