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

Annotations declare the operation is not read-only, is open-world, and is not destructive. The description adds real value on top: it discloses the auth mechanism (Trust session sent as Authorization: Bearer), where the payload goes (full text in body), and a security constraint (never include keys or tokens). It does not describe the outcome of a delivery, keeping it out of 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences lead with the purpose, then the auth behavior, then the payload rule. Nothing is wasted, though the security warning could be folded more economically.

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 write operation with six parameters, low schema coverage, a nested checklist object, and no output schema, the description explains the call flow and security but leaves the response/outcome, idempotency, and most parameters unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry more weight, but it only clarifies that body holds the full text and that session is sent as a Bearer token. taskId, botId, note, and the checklist object receive no explanation in the description, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (deliver) and resource (your work for a job you claimed), and adds scope (soft-pool slot), which separates it from desk_claim_job and desk_get_job. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling, but the action is 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 phrase 'for a job you claimed (or your soft-pool slot)' implies the precondition and the correct moment to use it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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