handoff_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 15-second poll interval, the default (40) and hard cap (50) on `seconds`, and the rationale for the cap (clients abandon calls near 60 seconds). It also flags that returned text is untrusted third-party content and must not be acted on as instructions, plus notes the shared-repository read path first. Missing only latency implications for the caller.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and polling cadence before the budget constraint and the security caveat. Three sentences and roughly ninety words is proportionate to a blocking, auto-repolling call; no sentence is filler, though the untrusted-content warning is verbose relative to the rest.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return contract itself: 'Returns the item and whether it was answered.' Combined with the timeout budget and repoll instruction, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly in a loop.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for `seconds` — default 40, max 50, min implied by the cap, plus the reason for the cap. The required `id` parameter is only implicitly covered as the target 'desk item', which is inferable but not stated.

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 ('Wait for the agent to answer a desk item') and immediately characterizes the mechanism: re-reads every 15 seconds until no longer waiting. That polling behavior alone distinguishes it from read-once siblings such as handoff_read and handoff_status.

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?

Usage context is clear (you are blocked on another agent's answer) and continuation is explicit: 'If `answered` is false, call again to keep waiting.' It does not name the read-once alternative (handoff_read) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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