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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, it discloses ordering (oldest first), a data quirk (attempt_id is null for older work), a content exclusion (prepared_content is never returned), cost ('Free'), and an authorization requirement ('requires the act scope'). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before calling and are not present in the 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?

Three compact sentences: trigger condition first, then what is returned and in what order, then constraints. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (when to use) is front-loaded.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of describing the return and it does so (job_id, attempt_id with null caveat, ordering, omitted content). Cost and auth scope round out everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on output shape and preconditions, which is the right allocation.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'Unclaimed preparation jobs, oldest first,' and states the returned fields (job_id, attempt_id). It implicitly distinguishes itself from content-fetching siblings by declaring 'Never includes prepared_content', though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger condition — 'when your user asks you to work the moves they accepted, or their standing orders call for it' — which is a clear usage context. It stops short of exclusions or naming a sibling to use instead for the prepared content itself.

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