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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description supplies the concrete semantics behind them: the job closes irreversibly, disputes become impossible, and the secret is deleted. It also discloses the automatic 7-day acceptance default, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the irreversibility window, and the response shape. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return fields (job_id, status, accepted_at, links) and pointing to get_job for full detail. Combined with the irreversibility and auto-accept context, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 job_id and passport_token are fully documented in the schema (including the amp_ pattern and the Authorization-header alternative). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Accept a delivered job') and immediately enumerates the consequences (closes, no dispute, secret deleted). An agent can distinguish it from dispute_job without opening either schema.

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?

The note that a job 'counts as accepted 7 days after delivery anyway' tells the agent when accepting is necessary versus when it can simply wait, and the mention of disputes signals the sibling alternative. It stops short of explicitly naming dispute_job as the escape hatch, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not routing rule.

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