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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: a 30-minute edit freeze with a frozenUntil boundary, the awaiting_homeowner repeat behavior, homeowner-only sending, and a US-only restriction. One mild tension: idempotentHint=false while the text says a second call during a pending send just returns a status, which reads as safer than a non-idempotent write; it is a nuance rather than a contradiction.

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 core behavior is front-loaded, but the homeowner-sends rule is stated twice ('Only the homeowner can send it to contractors' and 'Only the homeowner tap sends anything to contractors'), and the closing line about identifying as an AI assistant is unrelated to tool selection. Trimming the duplicate would sharpen an otherwise dense paragraph.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still names the key statuses (homeowner_action_required, awaiting_homeowner) and frozenUntil. What remains is the workflow ordering, which it does cover; a mutation tool with annotations gets adequate coverage here.

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%, with bidCardId and idempotency_key both documented in the schema itself, so the description does not need to restate them. The idempotency behavior mentioned in prose mirrors the schema's own description, adding little new meaning. 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: it checks whether a draft job is complete and pauses the connection's edits for 30 minutes until frozenUntil. The scope (one homeowner's draft job, this connection) is explicit, and it names sibling tools (start_job, answer_intake) so the agent can place it in the workflow.

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?

Gives concrete ordering: start_job before answer_intake, then prepare_publish once intake is ready; for other writes, read the previous reply first and follow the returned next step. It also states the alternative path for the homeowner_action_required case (relay insurance_url, never answer for them) and that a repeat call returns awaiting_homeowner instead of an error.

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