Wait for organisation build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions polling and timeout but lacks details on behavior on timeout (error vs partial return), polling interval, side effects, or return format. The information is minimal.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core mechanism and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description leaves out important details: polling interval, error handling, return format, and timeout behavior. For a polling tool, this is insufficient for complete guidance.

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 50% (only timeoutSeconds has a description). The description adds context that the tool polls and returns a final summary, which helps clarify orgId's purpose implicitly, but does not explain orgId explicitly. For 50% coverage, the description is adequate but not compensating significantly.

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 clearly states the action ('Poll an org until its build reaches a terminal state (ready/failed) or the timeout') and the output ('Returns the final org summary'). It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'wait_for_run'.

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?

The description implies usage for waiting on org builds but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'get_org' or 'query_org'. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving the agent without guidance on context.

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