microdata_wait_for_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the polling nature, default timeout (90s), early return behavior with status and a command to check back later, and the inclusion of downloadLinks upon completion. It could mention error handling or polling mechanics, but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the most critical behavioral nuance (timeout/early return) without extraneous details. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the return value (final extract object with downloadLinks) and the early-return fallback. It could describe the interim status object or failure modes, but the description is largely complete for the intended use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some behavioral context around timeoutSeconds (e.g., not blocking conversation) but does not add additional semantic meaning to the individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Poll' with a clear resource 'microdata extract' and a defined outcome ('until it completes or fails'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_extract by emphasizing the waiting/polling behavior and that it returns the final object with downloadLinks.

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 the tool should be used when you need to wait for an extract to finish, and notes it returns early under timeout to avoid blocking. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, but the context is clear enough from the behavior described.

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