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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds the genuinely necessary behavior: the call returns immediately and results must be polled via get_job. It omits whether re-requesting regenerates or re-bills the summary, which matters given the pay_job/estimate_cost siblings.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the trigger action front-loaded and the async read path immediately after 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly handles the return-value question by pointing to get_job and naming the summary/action_items fields. Only the cost/regeneration semantics and permission requirements are left unaddressed.

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% and each parameter, including the type enum and the robot_key requirement, is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: request an AI summary or action items for a completed job. It also distinguishes itself from get_job by explaining that get_job is the read path for the output, so the agent understands this tool only triggers the work.

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?

"of a completed job" gives an explicit precondition, and "the result appears in get_job" tells the agent the follow-up call to make. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, but no obvious competing sibling exists for this action.

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