job_wait

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

The annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the blocking nature, the max_seconds bound, and what it returns. It does not detail timeout or error behavior, but the core non-obvious behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 most important behavioral point, blocking and the time bound, is front-loaded, and the guidance about job_status polling is concise.

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 simple read-only wait tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the key parameter, and the alternative tool. It does not describe the exact shape of the return value or failure cases, but these are less critical given the annotations and the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema provides only names, types, and constraints but no semantic explanations. The description adds meaning for max_seconds ('Block up to max_seconds') but leaves job_id unexplained, though its purpose is inferable from the tool name. This is partial compensation for the 0% schema description 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Block') with a clear resource ('a job') and describes the outcome: it returns the final result or latest progress. It also distinguishes this tool from job_status by framing it as a waiting operation rather than a polling check.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer this over tight job_status polling,' giving the agent direct guidance on when to select this tool over its nearest sibling. It does not spell out a when-not-to-use case, such as 'if you only need current status without waiting,' so it falls just short of a 5.

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