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

The description discloses the authentication requirement ('Bearer token required') and the retry behavior ('Safe to retry with the same idempotency_key'), which go beyond the annotations. It also explains that this action completes the workflow, providing behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, etc.).

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives the auth requirement, and the third gives idempotency guidance—each earning 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 output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides essential context about the job lifecycle, auth, and retry safety, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline for parameter semantics is high. The description adds meaning by referring to 'result payload' (submitted_payload) and explicitly linking idempotency_key to retry safety, which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema.

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 ('Submit the result payload') and the specific resource ('a job the calling agent has claimed'), which distinguishes it from siblings like claim_job and list_jobs. The phrase 'completing the job workflow' anchors it as the final step in the job lifecycle.

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 implies the appropriate use case: submitting results for a job the agent has already claimed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent. The sibling tool names (claim_job, list_jobs) further help disambiguate when this tool is appropriate.

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