Await verdict

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe to call. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains the timeout return ('returns the same page with verdict null and timedOut true'), advises to call again to keep waiting, and details the full verdict object structure. It also discloses a subtle gotcha about reopened cases producing second decisions—all of which the annotations do not cover.

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 description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it states the core action, differentiates from a sibling, explains timeout behavior, lists the return fields, and prescribes the follow-up receipt action. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancies. The length is justified by the tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must fully specify return behavior, and it does: timeout return shape, success return field list, and the exact post-condition (post a receipt unless one exists). It also covers edge cases (reopened case) and gives the agent all information needed to correctly invoke the tool and proceed. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have descriptive docs (caseId is sourced from get_case/search_cases; timeoutS specifies range, default, and instant-return behavior). The description's mention of 'call again to keep waiting' is more of a usage pattern than parameter semantics. It adds minimal value beyond the schema for the parameters themselves, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Block until a case reaches its verdict (terminal decision), up to timeoutS seconds; returns instantly if already decided.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly stating 'unlike tribeunal_await_case_activity, which never wakes after closure.' This makes the purpose unmistakable even without opening the schema.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance by naming the alternative (tribeunal_await_case_activity) and contrasting their wake-up behavior. It also outlines a clear follow-up workflow: 'Afterward, post a receipt via tribeunal_post_comment containing the decisionUuid — check tribeunal_list_comments first and skip if one exists (a reopened case can mint a second decision).' This gives the agent a complete decision path.

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