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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context about entitlement requirements and billing protection. However, it does not explain what resuming changes, whether partial results are retained, or how repeated calls interact with the non-idempotent annotation. The billing guarantee is helpful but creates some tension with idempotentHint=false that the description does not resolve.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the verb comes first. The semicolon clause adds behavioral context without bloat. Slightly more clarity around 'own' and 'current entitlement' would improve it.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations, so the description need not cover return values or safety hints. Still, for a mutation-style retry operation with two undocumented required parameters, it should say more about eligibility and parameter meaning. It is minimally adequate but leaves important invocation context implicit.

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 needs to compensate by explaining task_id and project_id. It does not mention either parameter or clarify their roles beyond implying an owned failed task. The parameter names alone carry the meaning.

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: 'Resume a failed own task.' It is clearer than a generic retry tool because it scopes the operation to failed tasks owned by the caller and mentions an entitlement condition. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like research_start or research_task_status, which keeps it from a 5.

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 'failed own task under a current entitlement' implies the eligible scenario, but it does not say when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as starting a new task or checking task status. The guidance is present but implicit and leaves the agent to infer routing.

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