inline_request_status

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key trait that this call blocks/waits, but omits what happens on timeout, whether a timeout is an error or a status result, and polling behavior — meaningful gaps for a wait-style 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?

One short sentence with zero filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the whole budget is spent on a vague noun phrase with no front-loaded detail about blocking or return shape.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether this returns a status object, blocks until completion, or errors on timeout. With two parameters at 0% coverage and ambiguous sibling overlap, the definition is too thin.

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% and the description says nothing about requestId or waitSeconds — not even that waitSeconds is the max blocking duration with a default of 30 and a ceiling of 45, which is the single most important parameter semantic here. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 inline delivery status" gives a verb (wait) and a resource (inline delivery status), so the gist is retrievable, but "inline delivery status" is opaque and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like check_secret_request or secureinput_status, which plausibly do similar status lookups.

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 word "Wait" weakly implies this is the blocking/polling variant versus a non-blocking check, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling alternative is named despite five closely related sibling tools being present.

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