elster_form_handoff_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the call blocks, that a timeout applies, that files are written to disk, what the response contains, and how to handle a non-terminal result. The one soft spot is the "Read-only" label sitting next to a side effect that writes HTML + PDF files, which could confuse an agent about disk mutations even though no annotation is contradicted.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the sequencing constraint, then the outcome, then the retry rule. No filler and every clause carries actionable information.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned Transferticket, file paths, and the closed flag. It stays slightly short of a full return-shape description (e.g. whether closed:true also returns paths), but it is complete enough to invoke and interpret 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%, so archiveDir and timeoutMinutes are already fully documented in the schema; the description only alludes to them ("timeout passes", "saves ... as HTML + PDF"). Baseline 3 is correct when structured fields do 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 states a specific action (block until the handoff window closes, then archive the Übertragungsprotokoll as HTML + PDF) and ties it to a named sibling, elster_form_handoff, making the tool unambiguous against the form_* family.

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 explicit sequencing ("Call right after elster_form_handoff") and a concrete retry rule ("If it returns closed:false, call it again"), which is exactly the when/when-again guidance an agent needs for a blocking tool.

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