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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions persistence beyond the session, which is useful, but does not state whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, or what happens with invalid inputs. It leaves the agent guessing about safety and side effects.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a behavioral note and parameter requirement. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It tells the purpose and requirements but does not describe the return format, error behavior, or any additional context needed to interpret results. For a mysterious mailbox tool, more detail on output would be necessary for correct usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It says 'Needs a claimed name and its key,' giving some meaning (name is a claimed name, key is its key), but it does not elaborate on format, constraints, or how these relate to the jobs being read. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific purpose: it reports what happened to jobs while the session was dead, implying a read of historical job status. It also clarifies persistence beyond session. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like deaddrop_read or locker_get, which might have overlapping retrieval semantics.

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?

It indicates a prerequisite (needs a claimed name and its key) and a specific context (while session dead), which gives some usage direction. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the selection to inference.

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