Wait for Veil Deposit

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 important blocking/polling behavior and the set of terminal outcomes. However it omits what happens on timeout (error vs. last status), the default poll/timeout behavior, and any idempotency or safety notes for a long-running call.

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 with no filler; the verb, scope, and terminal conditions are all packed in without redundancy.

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 poll with a 5-parameter surface, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It should clarify the return on timeout, the default/max timeout relationship to the schema, and how the deposit is identified, none of which are covered elsewhere.

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 60%, so the description is expected to compensate, and it does not: pool, nonce, owner, timeoutSeconds, and intervalSeconds are never referenced. 'One queued Veil deposit' only loosely gestures at the pool+nonce identifiers without adding format or meaning.

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 gives a specific verb (poll) and resource (a single queued Veil deposit) plus the terminal conditions it waits on. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling veil_deposit_status, so sibling differentiation is left to the name alone.

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?

Naming the terminal states (accepted/rejected/refunded/timeout) implies the 'wait until the deposit resolves' scenario, so usage is implied. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative or when-not guidance, e.g. whether to prefer this over veil_deposit_status for a non-blocking check.

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