Wait for link

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

Annotations already mark the operation as readOnly, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the call blocks, polls every 5 seconds, and stops when the user authorizes or a timeout occurs. It does not contradict the readOnly hint.

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 short sentences convey the blocking behavior, the exit condition, and the polling cadence with no filler. All information is front-loaded and relevant.

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 wait tool in an authorization flow, the description omits how to obtain request_id (presumably from accounts_connect) and what happens when timeout is reached. The output schema may cover return values, but the operational flow is not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions timeout behavior and a 5s polling interval, but never identifies request_id as the authorization request handle, and does not clarify timeout_seconds as the configurable max wait.

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 identifies the operation as blocking until the user authorizes (link opened) or timeout, with a polling interval of 5s. It distinguishes the wait behavior from sibling tools by describing the blocking action, but it does not explicitly name or contrast accounts_complete or accounts_connect.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as calling it after accounts_connect or before accounts_complete. The description implies a waiting step in an authorization flow but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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