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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful context: jobs are 'owner-scoped' (auth scoping), 'resumable' (lifecycle), and 'Each source consumes its usual member quota' (rate/quota cost). It does not explain failure/idempotency behavior beyond the word 'stable'.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded on what is created and followed by cost and lifecycle notes. Density of jargon like 'exact-contract' slightly reduces immediate readability, but nothing is wasted.

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. For a mutating, quota-consuming job starter, the description covers ownership, quota cost, optional modules, and the poll/resume lifecycle. The main gap is that chain/address semantics are undocumented at 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it explains requestKey ('stable requestKey' hinting at idempotency) and the Forensics/security flags. The chain enum, address bounds, and their semantics are left entirely to the schema, which documents nothing.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Create an owner-scoped, resumable exact-contract job.' It conveys that this starts an asset research job scoped to a contract, which is more specific than a tautology. However, 'exact-contract' is jargon and the text never explicitly distinguishes this from sibling 'research_asset', so the differentiation is partial.

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 gives clear workflow context: 'Supply a stable requestKey, then poll or resume by taskId,' which implicitly routes the agent to get_asset_research_job / resume_asset_research_job after starting. It also notes the optional Forensics/security inclusion. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this versus research_asset or the monitor tools.

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