wait_for_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: polling waits, 1-120s request window, truncated bodies, omitted HTML, and the return_existing caveat. It does not fully explain consumption/ordering or timeout edge cases, but it provides meaningful transparency beyond the schema.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds a distinct useful fact: timing, usage timing, data truncation, alternative tool, and existing-request handling. There is no fluff or tautology.

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 4-parameter polling tool with an output schema and no annotations, this is nearly complete. It covers when to use it, when not to use it, an alternative for full data, and the return_existing scenario. The main remaining gap is some ambiguity around the request_type parameter, especially its 'email' enum value, since the description directs email-specific cases to wait_for_email.

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 low (25%), yet the description adds important parameter meaning: timeout is bounded to 1-120s, return_existing=true can be used when the request may already be there, and webhook_token is the UUID from create_webhook. The request_type parameter is only partially clarified by 'HTTP (or DNS)' and the explicit exclusion of email verification cases, so a small gap remains.

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?

Starts with a concrete verb and object: 'Poll until a new HTTP (or DNS) callback hits the webhook.' This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like wait_for_email, export_webhook_data, and get_webhook_requests.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use after giving a site the webhook URL.' It names clear alternatives for overlapping cases: 'use export_webhook_data for the full dump' and 'use wait_for_email instead' for verification/magic-link/password-reset mail. This is strong sibling differentiation.

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