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

Annotations already signal idempotency, non-read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by explaining the exact conflict rule, the 16 KiB payload limit, the no-secrets requirement, and the 100-job lifetime cap. No contradiction with annotations.

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 focused sentences, each adding a distinct constraint or behavior. The primary action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 covers idempotency, conflict behavior, payload constraints, security policy, and lifetime limits. With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the remaining parameters are adequately covered by names and schema patterns.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for job_key (stable, idempotency key) and payload (JSON, size limit, data sensitivity), and references write_token's role. However, queue_id and write_token semantics are mostly left to their names and regex patterns.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a JSON job') and clarifies the central idempotent behavior. It clearly differentiates this enqueue operation from sibling read/claim/release/renew operations through the stable job_key and conflict semantics.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool to add a job to a queue. However, the description does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer routing from purpose and sibling names.

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