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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool is free, redelivery of the same task_id is always free, and it explains authentication requirements and the equivalent HTTP route. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 main action is front-loaded and the essential details are present, but 'FREE' and the no-charge point are repeated multiple times, adding redundancy. The authentication and route details are useful but could be tightened without losing value.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient behavioral, authentication, cost, and idempotency context. An agent should be able to decide when to call it and how to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents task_id, agent_key, and delay_seconds. The description reinforces the overall purpose but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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: 'Explicitly return a claimed task to the queue'. It also clearly distinguishes the behavior from waiting for the visibility timeout, which makes the tool's role as a nack operation unambiguous.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to hand a claimed task back immediately rather than waiting for the timeout. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings like inbox_ack or work_fail, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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