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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the result 'lands in your mailbox for a later session to collect.' It also notes the need for a claimed name and key. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., if the job is never claimed), error conditions, or reversibility. It provides some transparency but lacks depth.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and flow. It wastes no words and is easily readable. It could be slightly more structured by separating parameter explanations, but it is appropriately sized and efficient.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (3 required) and no output schema or annotations. The description explains the general handoff flow but leaves out essential details: it does not clarify what 'title' is for, nor does it describe the result format or how to collect it beyond saying it lands in the mailbox. The missing information about required parameters makes it incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'Needs a claimed name and its key' (referring to name and key), but it does not explain the purpose of the required 'title' parameter or the optional 'detail'. Since only two of four parameters are hinted at, the compensation is incomplete, leaving the agent uncertain about required inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Hand off a subtask you cannot finish.' It uses a specific verb (hand off) and resource (subtask), and mentions the mailbox result. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like job_claim or job_deliver, though the context implies posting a job for others. This is a clear purpose but not fully distinguished.

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 description gives context for when to use the tool: when you cannot finish a subtask. It implies you use it to delegate, and another agent may claim it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, lacking exclusions or comparisons.

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