Wait for Action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context about what the timeout covers (API requests and rate-limit delays), but says nothing about what happens on timeout expiry or the return shape.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the timeout caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description's claim that it returns 'full details' is left unelaborated, and it omits what happens when the wait times out or errors. For a blocking/polling tool whose timeout behavior is the main risk, this leaves a meaningful gap.

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%, with every parameter including domain, resource_id, action_id, and timeout documented in the schema itself. The description's note on timeout semantics largely restates the schema's timeout description, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 (wait) and resource (a resource action) plus the terminal conditions (success or error) and that it returns full details. Clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from the many list_*_actions siblings, though it never names an alternative tool 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?

Usage is implied: this is a polling tool you call after triggering an async action. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as the list_*_actions tools.

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