Wait for a call to finish

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add operational behavior — and it does: this is a blocking/waiting operation, it may return a non-terminal status requiring a repeat call, and it lists the payload an agent can expect. It stops short of stating a bounded max wait, retry pacing, or what happens if the call never terminates.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the blocking semantics, then the return payload, then the polling condition, and finally the user-facing instruction. No redundancy with the title, though the instruction to paraphrase results for the user verges on being outside the tool's own scope.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely (outcome, summary, details, transcript). Combined with the explicit re-call condition, an agent has what it needs to invoke this correctly; only the absence of any sibling routing keeps it out of the top tier.

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 both `callId` and `timeoutSeconds` (with its 0-280 range and default of 50) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond implying the polling pattern; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Wait for a call to finish') with the resource ('call') and enumerates what the tool hands back: outcome, summary, details (confirmation numbers, decisions, action items, open questions) and transcript. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the sibling `get_call`, which an agent might reasonably confuse with a blocking wait.

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 gives real operating guidance: poll again if the returned status is not completed/failed/canceled, and report the outcome to the user in plain words. What is missing is the alternative — when to use `get_call` for a non-blocking peek instead of blocking here, or what to do while waiting.

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