Wait for Job

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: default poll cadence, default budget, and the important fact that a timed-out result is not an error and should be retried. It does not describe what a resolved job result contains.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and termination conditions, followed by defaults and retry semantics. No redundant or filler text.

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 read-only polling tool the description covers call cadence, budgeting, and the timed-out-not-error contract well. Since there is no output schema, it could ideally describe the shape of a completed job result, which is the only notable 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%, so both maxWaitSeconds (including the client-timeout caveat) and pollIntervalSeconds are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the defaults, adding no semantics beyond what structured data provides — the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb (poll/wait) plus resource (job) and the exact terminal conditions (FINISHED, FAILED, CANCELED). The polling-until-terminal framing distinguishes it from one-shot siblings like transkribus_job_get without needing to name them.

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?

Clearly explains how to keep waiting after a timeout ('call again to keep waiting') and outlines the wait budget. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as transkribus_job_get or transkribus_job_list, but the usage context is well-defined.

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