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

The annotation idempotentHint is true, but the description reveals that repeatedly sending success with the same progress_token can flip the check to STUCK, meaning identical repeated calls produce different outcomes over time. This contradicts the idempotency hint, so the description is in direct conflict with annotations.

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 dense yet compact, using two sentences to cover signal effects, the progress_token mechanism, and the zombie-job use case. Every phrase earns its place with no filler, and the structure flows logically from basics to optional behavior.

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 description thoroughly covers the tool's behavior including state transitions and the STUCK mechanism, which is crucial for correct usage. It omits the response format and potential errors, but given the tool's simple nature and lack of output schema, the description is nearly complete. The idempotency contradiction slightly undermines overall contextual reliability.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains what each signal value does (UP, duration, DOWN), and how progress_token behaves (consecutive identical tokens trigger STUCK). This transforms raw parameter definitions into actionable behavioral knowledge.

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 clearly states the tool sends a heartbeat signal to a Cronping check, with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the three signal types and their distinct effects, making it obvious what the tool does and differentiating it from siblings like create_heartbeat and get_heartbeat_status.

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 description provides clear context for when to use each signal (success marks UP, start records beginning, fail marks DOWN) and when to use progress_token (on success pings to detect zombie jobs). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is evident from the signal semantics.

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