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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further: it discloses the required scope (refresh:write), that the call returns a job status rather than performing the work ('provider operations are not executed'), and retry semantics ('preserve request_id and payload'). This is genuine context beyond the structured hints, though it could note the polling relationship to get_job_status more explicitly.

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?

Four compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and tightened with prerequisites and a retry note. Every sentence carries information; only the retry clause could arguably be folded into the idempotency framing.

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 an async job-queuing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers side-effect scope, auth, idempotency, and return shape ('a job status'). The main gap is not pointing at get_job_status for retrieving results, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 carries the burden, and it explains request_id as a value that must be preserved across retries (an idempotency key). path_id is only implied by 'an existing path' and its format/length limits go unexplained, so half the parameters remain under-specified.

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: 'Queue a new source check for an existing path.' An agent can tell this initiates a refresh job rather than reading or inspecting documentation, which differentiates it functionally from inspect_documentation/read_documentation. It stops short of naming a sibling it replaces, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

'Subject to refresh rights' and 'Requires the connected identity and refresh:write' establish preconditions for use, and 'provider operations are not executed' narrows the scope. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer this over the other documentation tools.

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