Wait for SMS on Existing Order

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

Goes well beyond annotations: warns this call BLOCKS for up to timeout_seconds, gives typical delivery latency (~10-60s), and discloses the WebSocket + polling-fallback delivery mechanism. readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already cover safety; description adds operational behavior.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded with the blocking behavior and timeout, then mechanism and usage. A slight redundancy between 'Wait (block)' and the later 'BLOCKS' sentence is minor.

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 rich annotations and fully documented params, it covers what the call does, how long it may block, and how delivery is detected. The one gap is no statement about what is returned on timeout, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, defaults, min/max (100% coverage), so baseline applies. Description mostly restates timeout bounds and the order_id origin already in schema, adding no new parameter semantics.

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 operation: wait/blocks on an existing order_id until SMS arrives or timeout. The resource and behavior are unmistakable, though it stops short of explicitly differentiating from the get_sms sibling (e.g., 'if you only need to read once, use get_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?

Explicitly instructs to pass an order_id from create_order and describes the buy-and-wait workflow ('call create_order then this tool'). It gives clear context and prerequisites, but no when-not-to-use guidance versus get_sms/retry_order.

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