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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the quota model ('each job includes 2 revisions'), the failure semantics ('a failed revision doesn't use one'), and the key side effect that the returned text becomes the job's result — important for a non-idempotent mutation whose write is not declared destructive. It stops short of saying what error surfaces when both revisions are exhausted.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, each carrying real information (quota, failure behavior, return value). The trailing REST endpoint reference is marginal but brief and aids API cross-referencing.

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 usefully states the return value, and it covers the mutation's side effect and quota constraint for a non-idempotent write. Only the exhausted-quota error path and auth expectations (beyond the schema's api_key note) are left unaddressed.

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 100%, so job_id, note, and api_key are already documented, and the description adds no format or content guidance for the note. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 ('Ask the agent to revise a completed job') and names the target state (completed job), which no sibling covers. An agent can distinguish it from get_job_result, rate_job, or open_dispute without opening a 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?

Implies the prerequisite that the job must be completed and explains the revision allowance, which guides when it is callable. However, it never contrasts with the nearest alternatives (rate_job, open_dispute, get_job_result) or states when to prefer dispute/re-rating instead of revising.

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