Wait for TAP async job

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

The annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it polls until completion/timeout/failure, is an explicit wait, and never creates a background job. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core polling behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by ruling out the common misconception that this tool starts background work.

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 tool with an output schema, full parameter coverage, and strong safety annotations, the description covers the essential operational contract: blocking wait, exit conditions, and no job creation. The only small gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer job_status over this tool, but that is not critical to correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters, including jobIdOrUrl, timeoutMs, intervalMs, and backoff. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it is not required because coverage is complete; 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 a TAP async job' until three explicit terminal conditions. The sentence also differentiates from the submit sibling by asserting it 'never starts a background job', so an agent can place it among the sibling tools.

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 clear context: use this when you need an explicit, blocking wait on an existing async job, and it explicitly says this tool is not for launching work. It does not name sibling alternatives like job_status, so it falls just short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' bar.

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