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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds the context that it resumes a blocked job but does not detail what happens (e.g., whether it re-runs from the beginning, whether it requires additional inputs). With annotations covering the mutation risk, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and adds the usage context without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description is nearly complete. It explains the 'blocked' state and the condition to use. However, it doesn't describe what happens after resuming (e.g., whether it returns a new status or result), but an output schema exists, so the return format is covered there. The major missing piece is that it doesn't mention that the job must exist or be in a valid state, but that is implied.

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%, but there is only one parameter (job_id) with no description. The description mentions the job being blocked but doesn't explain what job_id refers to or its format. Since the parameter is straightforward (an ID), the 0% coverage is not a major issue, but the description could have added a hint about what type of ID (e.g., from a previous response). Baseline 3 is fair.

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 action ('Resume a job') and the target resource (job in 'blocked' state). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the 'blocked' state prerequisite, which is more specific than a generic 'resume' tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but the context makes it clear.

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 guidance on when to use it: after the user has resolved a blocker. It implicitly says 'do not use this until the blocker is resolved'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the when-to-use guidance is strong enough.

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