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

The description thoroughly discloses billing behavior (only charged on false, free on true), unknown-job handling, fail-closed null semantics, retry advice, authentication methods, and the HTTP route. This goes far beyond the annotations and adds valuable context about side effects and failure modes.

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 a single dense paragraph with redundant cost explanations: '$0.002 ONLY WHEN THE ANSWER IS no', 'FREE, always', and 'Costs $0.002 USDC per call...' repeat the same billing point. While information-dense, the lack of structure and repetition make it harder to parse quickly.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers auth, billing, failure semantics, and route. However, it never explicitly states the response shape (e.g., an object with a `continue` boolean/null), instead implying it via 'continue:null' and 'continue === false'. The full return contract remains somewhat vague.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by noting the job_id alias 'queue_id', providing an example, clarifying agent_key is a fallback when headers cannot be set, and explaining the behavioral effect of unknown job IDs. This exceeds baseline.

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 positions this as 'the check a worker makes between items,' and the title 'Should I keep going' reinforces that it asks whether a job should continue. However, it never directly states 'returns whether the job should continue' or explicitly names the boolean response field, so the purpose is clear but slightly implicit.

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 clear usage context: this is a per-item check, and when state cannot be determined it says to 'retry rather than guess.' It also explains unknown jobs behave as 'keep going.' It does not name sibling alternatives, but the context is specific enough that an agent would know when to call it.

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