Wait for verification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: it polls repeatedly rather than checking once, it operates on the same session (stateful coupling to prior calls), and it is bounded by a timeout. It never says what happens on timeout expiry (error vs. negative result), which is the key outcome for a polling tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the action (poll the same browser session) before the exit conditions. Nothing redundant, though it could have used the remaining space for the sibling routing it lacks.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry the result semantics, and it does not: an agent cannot tell whether an expired timeout raises an error or returns a cleared/not-cleared status. For a 3-parameter polling tool with documented siblings, this leaves a meaningful gap despite the accurate behavioral summary.

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 only 33% (session_id alone is documented), so the description must compensate somewhat. It clarifies that the session must be the same one already in use and that the wait is time-bounded, which maps to session_id and timeout_ms, but poll_ms is left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 (poll/wait) and resource (the same browser session's verification challenge) plus its termination conditions, so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like captcha_inspect or captcha_resume, which an agent could plausibly confuse with 'wait for the challenge to clear.'

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 only implied: 'the same browser session' hints this follows a prior captcha interaction, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of alternatives such as captcha_inspect (check state) or captcha_resume. With five captcha siblings, routing guidance is the main missing piece.

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