Bot: wait for reply

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses the important side effect that returned messages are 'marked read', plus the timeout contract ('returns timed_out=true and no messages'). Note the mild tension: marking messages read is a server-state mutation while readOnlyHint=true; the description at least surfaces it rather than hiding it.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: what it waits for, when to use it, and what the timeout/retry behavior looks like. The core behavior is front-loaded with no preamble.

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?

For a blocking-wait tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: trigger, sequencing with bot_send_message, timeout result shape, and the re-call pattern.

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%, so chat_id, timeout_seconds and after_message_id are already fully documented in the schema, including the subtle 'button press on it counts' semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a concrete verb+resource+behavior: it waits until someone writes or presses a button, then returns the new messages. That is far more specific than the title. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling bot_get_new_messages, which is the tool an agent is most likely to confuse it with.

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?

It states the trigger clearly ('Use after bot_send_message to hold a conversation or ask the user for approval') and explains the retry pattern ('call again to keep waiting'). There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use polling instead when you cannot block), but the context is unambiguous.

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