subscribe_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: this is a blocking long-poll that returns only at a terminal state (completed/failed/etc). However it says nothing about timeout handling, whether the default 600s timeout raises an error, or the cost of holding the call open.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the blocking nature and the terminal states with zero filler. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations and three undocumented parameters, the description is thin for a blocking call whose timeout and poll-interval semantics materially affect how an agent should invoke it.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. job_handle, poll_interval, and timeout_seconds are neither explained nor given format/units guidance (e.g. that timeout_seconds bounds the wait).

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 states a specific behavior (long-poll until terminal state) plus the resource (job) and enumerates terminal states. It lets an agent distinguish this blocking-wait tool from a one-shot check, though it never explicitly names get_status_tool or list_jobs_tool as alternatives.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it wants to wait for a job to finish rather than polling manually. There is no explicit 'use this instead of get_status_tool' guidance or statement of when NOT to use it.

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