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

The annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by stating the consequence: Marsell reclaims the job and the owner sees the stated reason, which tells the agent this is a visible handoff rather than a silent log. It does not say what the agent should do afterward (stop working the job? wait for a reply?), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

One sentence plus a consequence clause, front-loaded with the action and reason, with zero filler. Both clauses earn their place: the first says what to call it for, the second says what happens as a result.

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 three fully documented parameters, no output schema, and a non-destructive annotation set, the description covers what an agent needs in order to call it correctly. The gaps are minor: the optional `project` parameter goes unmentioned, and there is no hint about what happens next or whether a reported job can be picked back up.

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 would be 3, but the description's examples of acceptable reasons (a login you do not have, a page that changed, a step that failed) directly guide what content belongs in the required `why` field, which the schema only labels generically. The optional `project` parameter is not mentioned at all, which holds it back from a 5.

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?

"Reports that you could not do a job, and why" names a specific verb (report) and resource (homework job), and the parenthetical enumerates the kinds of failure being reported. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the adjacent siblings (homework_done, homework_take, mission_stuck, work_cancel), so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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 triggering condition is implied well enough – call this when you were unable to complete a job – and the examples (missing login, changed page, failed step) sharpen what counts as "stuck." However, there is no explicit when-not guidance: nothing says to use homework_done on success, work_reschedule on a timing problem, or mission_stuck for a different object type.

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