Wait for checkout

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: a timeout returns status 'open' rather than an error, progress is reported while waiting, and sessions expire after 30 minutes. These operational details go meaningfully beyond the annotation set.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then edge case, then a structured Args block. The Args section partially duplicates the schema, but given the missing schema descriptions for two parameters it earns its place rather than being pure repetition.

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?

An output schema exists and the description correctly defers to it by pointing at jami_get_checkout_status for the return shape. The timeout-as-status behavior, retry loop, and expiration window give an agent everything needed to drive it correctly; only the get-vs-wait tradeoff is left implicit.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description carries weight: it supplies the 5–300 range and default 90 for timeout_seconds and 2–30/default 3 for interval_seconds, which the schema declares only as min/max. It omits response_format, which the schema documents, so compensation is partial but effective for the two undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Poll a checkout session until it's paid or ends, up to timeout_seconds') with scope and stopping conditions front-loaded. It distinguishes itself from jami_get_checkout_status by framing itself as a persistent poller rather than a one-shot read, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

Gives clear context: call it again after a timeout returns 'open', and notes sessions expire 30 minutes after creation. It stops short of an explicit when-not clause naming jami_get_checkout_status as the single-check alternative, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than exhaustive.

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