wait_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 600s cap, the blocking-then-return semantics, and the early-exit trigger states (done/error). It doesn't state that this is a harmless non-mutating operation, but for a pure wait primitive the behavioral disclosure is nearly complete.

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, no filler, front-loads the primary action before the conditional job_id behavior and the routing hint.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema wait tool, the description covers duration, cap, early-return semantics, and the motivating use case — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so both parameters are already documented (seconds with max/min, job_id as early-return trigger). The description adds only the 'done/error' qualification for early return, which is marginal beyond the schema's own text.

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 action (sleep for N seconds, max 600, then return) plus a conditional behavior (early return on done/error when job_id is given). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_job by naming it as the busy-loop alternative.

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 names the intended use case (polling pull_model/run_local_agent) and the alternative it replaces (busy-looping get_job), giving the agent a concrete condition for choosing this tool.

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