joltsms_wait_for_sms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the blocking poll loop, the default 120s timeout, the 5s polling interval, and that the response includes the message body and parsed OTP. It omits what happens on timeout (error vs empty result) and any auth/rate-limit context, leaving a modest gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the numbered workflow is easy to scan. There is minor redundancy between step 3 ('polls every few seconds') and the closing line ('default timeout is 120 seconds with 5-second polling intervals'), which costs a little tightness.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior an agent needs: blocking polling, timeout and interval defaults, sender filtering, and the shape of the return value. The main remaining gap is timeout-outcome behavior, which is minor but non-trivial for a polling tool.

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%, with every parameter documented including ranges and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description echoes the from_filter purpose and default timeout/interval but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Poll for an incoming SMS message on a specific number,' and frames its role as 'the KEY tool for OTP verification workflows.' It distinguishes itself functionally from list/reply siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related joltsms_get_latest_otp sibling.

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?

Provides a concrete numbered workflow showing when to reach for this tool (after triggering an OTP) and adds a targeted usage tip for from_filter. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. whether get_latest_otp is the better pick when a message has already arrived.

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