wait_for_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'Polls on its own' and 'returns the code itself, already parsed out of the SMS,' which are key behavioral traits beyond the name. It omits explicit timeout/error behavior, but the schema's timeoutSeconds parameter hints at the lifespan.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what it does, how it behaves (polls), what it returns (parsed code), and the prerequisite action. It does not address failure modes like timeout errors, but the overall context is adequate for practical use.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond repeating 'verification code' and 'ordered number'; activationId and timeoutSeconds are already well-documented in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool waits for a verification code on an ordered number and returns the parsed code. The verb 'Wait' plus the resource 'verification code on an ordered number' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like order_number or request_another_sms.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Trigger the SMS on the target service first.' This implies the proper sequence (order first, trigger SMS, then wait) and gives context without explicitly exclaiming alternatives. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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