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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals meaningful behavioral details: repeated acknowledgement with the same winning receipt succeeds, different or stale receipts conflict, and completion does not reclaim the lifetime job allowance. This adds value beyond idempotentHint and destructiveHint and does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, followed by idempotency and conflict behavior, then the allowance consequence. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 presence of an output schema, annotations, and a clear description covering purpose, prerequisites, idempotency, conflict behavior, and a key side-effect, the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 carry semantic weight. It explains the role of the worker token and the receipt, including what makes a receipt valid or conflicting. The queue_id and job_id parameters are not explicitly described, but their names and schemas make them reasonably self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a claimed job completed using the worker token and its current receipt.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like claim_agent_queue_job, release_agent_queue_job, and renew_agent_queue_job.

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 description gives clear context: use this when a claimed job is completed, with the worker token and current receipt. It also explains important usage conditions around repeating the same receipt versus a stale or different receipt, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-completion actions like release or renew.

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