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

Annotations already declare the mutation and idempotency profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: paused jobs stay stopped until resumed, resume re-plans the job, and Reach auto-pauses/resumes on quota or disconnection. This is meaningful disclosure of side effects, though it does not address auth or what data is retained.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the auto-pause behavior is stated twice ('Reach also pauses a job by itself when a quota is reached or the account disconnects' and 'Reach pauses on quota or disconnection by itself'), which is redundant padding in an otherwise short description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile. The description supplies usage intent and lifecycle behavior, leaving only minor gaps such as permissions needed to pause.

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%, with job_id and idempotency_key fully documented in the schema (including retry/expiry semantics). The description adds nothing new about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (pause a job) and immediately states the effect: 'nothing more runs until resume_job is called.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling resume_job, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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 a concrete use case ('hold a job the user is unsure about') and points to the counterpart tool resume_job. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites, but the context is clear enough to select the tool.

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