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

Annotations provide no useful safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses immediate null return, secret receipt issuance, visibility timeout range, redelivery semantics, the 5-claim failure limit, and the fact that no job executes server-side—far more than the structured fields alone convey.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral or safety fact. No filler is present.

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?

The description is largely complete for invoking the tool: outputs (null vs. job with secret receipt), visibility constraints, failure limit, and redelivery caution are all covered. It falls just short of full completeness by not explaining queue_id or what an agent should do with the returned receipt (e.g., use it for subsequent ack/renew/release calls).

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?

Only visibility_timeout has schema documentation, so the low coverage requires compensation. The description does explain worker_token's role and visibility_timeout's range and default, but queue_id is never described beyond its schema pattern; it must be inferred from the tool name and parameter name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Claim the next pending job') and clarifies it uses a worker token. It also distinguishes the operation from siblings by stating the server does not execute jobs and that a returned job contains a new secret receipt.

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 implies when to use it: when a worker wants the next pending job, and it warns that redelivery is possible so workers should make side effects idempotent. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with sibling operations like ack_agent_queue_job, release_agent_queue_job, or renew_agent_queue_job, so an agent must infer the appropriate choice.

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