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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description earns credit by making idempotency concrete: repeating with the same winning receipt succeeds, while a stale/expired receipt is a conflict. "Completion does not reclaim the lifetime job allowance" is a non-obvious side effect found nowhere in the structured fields. It leaves the destructiveHint unexplained — it never says what, if anything, is destroyed or consumed by completing the job.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the idempotency rule, then the failure case, then the side effect. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 described, and the description covers the main behavioral risks for a mutation: idempotent retry, conflict on stale receipt, and allowance accounting. What remains is the meaning of the destructive annotation and whether completion attests any result payload — minor gaps for a well-annotated tool.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the receipt's staleness rule. The description only reinforces the receipt/token roles at a high level and adds no format, source, or edge-case detail the schema lacks — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Mark a claimed job completed" gives a specific verb and resource, and the mention of worker token plus current receipt pins down exactly which operation in the claim/renew/release/acknowledge family this is. It stops short of naming the closest siblings (release_agent_queue_job, renew_agent_queue_job) outright, so disambiguation is inferred from terminology rather than stated.

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?

Usage context is implied by "a claimed job" and "the current claim" — the agent can infer it must call claim_agent_queue_job first and hold a valid receipt. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for the case where the agent wants to give the job back or extend the claim.

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