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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that the call triggers the next step in the same request, explains the idempotent retry semantics (matching idempotentHint=true), describes the 409 response code, and states no API key or account is needed. These are the behaviors an agent needs and could not infer from the structured hints alone.

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?

It is dense and front-loads the version scope and purpose, with every sentence carrying operational content. It reads as one long packed paragraph rather than structured points, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, retries, and error codes, which is most of what is needed. It leaves terms like submission_status and verifying unexplained and does not describe the success response shape.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance the schema lacks: token is the worker_token and receipt comes from claim_agent_queue_job. It does not add detail on run_id/step_id/result beyond the schema, keeping it at a 4.

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?

It states a specific verb (hand in the result) plus the exact resource (a delegated step of an agent run) and pins the scope (external-worker version 1 only). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling, telling the agent the run completes the job itself so no ack_agent_queue_job call is needed.

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?

It gives the precondition (use the receipt from claim_agent_queue_job), the exclusion (send no ack), the retry protocol (repeat the same request after a lost answer or while submission_status says verifying), and error handling (a 409 carries a code saying what to do). That covers when to use, when not to, and what to do on failure.

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