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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint) by explaining the 7-day clock mechanic, how a buyer message clears the request, and the exact idempotent behavior (re-asking does not restart the clock and returns the original time). It also documents the async sweep timing and warns against treating a post-releases_at in-progress job as a failure, which is exactly the operational context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads purpose and usage before the mechanics, and each sentence carries substantive information rather than filler. It is dense and runs long, but the length is largely justified by the idempotency and timing rules it must convey.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to name the returned fields (close_requested_at, releases_at) and explains their semantics, including that releases_at is an earliest bound honored by an hourly sweep. For a mutation tool with real timing and permission constraints, nothing material is left unstated.

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 one parameter (job_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail about job_id beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ask the buyer to close an in-progress job') and pins the actor ('as the seller working on it'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like complete_job, cancel_job, and send_request. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use this after delivering, when the buyer has gone quiet') and states the eligibility preconditions ('Only the accepted seller... only while the job is in progress'). The alternative path is covered too: if the buyer completes, cancels, or messages, the request is cleared and can be reissued later.

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