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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that no delivery is promised until acceptance, and that the feature is 'Staged flag-off', warning the agent that the tool may be inactive or return degraded results.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a WHEN clause, a caveat, and a call example; every sentence carries information. The fragment 'Staged flag-off.' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, which is the only structural weakness.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only status lookup with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what record is fetched, what fields it covers, the acceptance precondition, and that the feature may be staged off. It does not describe the listing shape when job_id is omitted, but the schema covers that case.

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%, so both the ark_ key and the optional job_id are documented in the schema itself, including the 'omit to list your recent jobs' behavior. The description only adds an empty-argument example, which confirms but does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('look up your coding-job negotiation') and enumerates what the record contains (scope, tier, terms, acceptance state). It is clearly distinct from mutating siblings like barter_code_offer or barter_code_accept, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 'WHEN:' clause gives explicit triggering context for looking up a negotiation. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the read-only lookup framing makes the boundary against offer/accept/scope tools reasonably clear.

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