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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does provide meaningful behavior: pricing is sealed at admission, eligible durable text jobs get discounted deferred processing, and the response contains nextAction. It does not cover side effects or idempotency semantics, but it covers the most surprising behaviors.

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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler, front-loads the core action, and each sentence carries a distinct piece of information: what the tool does, pricing/deferred behavior, and return/alias details.

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?

It covers pricing, deferred processing, and the return field, which is substantial, and an output schema reduces the need to describe response shape in prose. However, for a submission tool with many siblings, it lacks guidance on when to use this instead of quote/run/invoke tools and does not explain idempotency behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the input/body alias and tells the caller to omit quoteId. The required capability_key and idempotency_key are left unexplained, and the free-form body is given no content guidance.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Submit a capability job') and adds a useful return hint, so an agent can tell it is the submission endpoint rather than the inspection/status siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate it from similar operations like hydracept_run or hydracept_invoke, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 a clear operational directive ('Omit quoteId') and a scoping condition for deferred processing, but it never says when to choose this tool over run/invoke/quote siblings or what preconditions apply. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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