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

Annotations declare it is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent write, and the description adds context annotations cannot carry: it is paid, same billing as hydracept_run, requires a bearer key, and returns immediately rather than blocking. It does not address idempotency behavior despite the idempotentHint=false annotation and the idempotency_key parameter, which is a meaningful gap for a job-submission tool.

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-loaded with the core action and the routing rule before the housekeeping, and most clauses earn their place. The appended 'Returns:' sentence is largely redundant with the existing output schema, adding mild bloat to an otherwise tight definition.

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?

Covers the non-blocking contract, auth requirement, billing, the downstream poll tool, and an enumerated error set (WORKSPACE_KEY_REQUIRED, FundingRequired, etc.). With an output schema present, return-value detail is optional, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no per-parameter meaning (e.g. how capability_key resolves or when to supply idempotency_key) beyond what the schema already documents.

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+resource ('Start a capability job') with the key behavioral trait ('return its id immediately'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from hydracept_run, hydracept_quote_capability, and hydracept_job_status. An agent can route without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use ('execution is required but this MCP call must not block'), when-not ('not for quotes or status checks'), and a named alternative with its selection condition ('Prefer hydracept_run when waiting is acceptable'), plus the follow-up tool to poll with.

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