Check a pending secure input request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the call can block up to the wait limit, which discourages polling loops. It does not describe what statuses come back or what happens at timeout, so the addition is modest.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the actionable invocation tip comes early. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing purpose and parameter context.

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 and no annotations about returns, the description should say what a check yields (pending vs fulfilled, or how the secret is delivered) and what timeout means. None of that is present, so an agent cannot plan around the result.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It only advises a waitSeconds value; the required requestId is never explained (e.g., that it comes from request_secret), and the 0-45 range and default of 30 are left to the schema alone.

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?

"Wait for request status" gestures at a verb and resource but is close to restating the title, and it never says the subject is a pending secure input request or how it differs from siblings like inline_request_status and secureinput_status. An agent cannot tell from the description which of the several status tools to pick.

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 only guidance is "Use waitSeconds=45 to avoid repeated polling," which is an invocation tip rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when this tool is appropriate versus request_secret, submit_inline_secret, or the other status tools, and no prerequisites.

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