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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds only that the call signals termination; it doesn't say whether repeat calls are harmful given idempotentHint=false, nor what state change the report causes downstream.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and the trigger, followed by one qualifying clause. No repetition of the title, no filler, and the two task flavors are stated compactly.

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?

For a four-parameter, one-required reporting tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose and timing adequately. The remaining gap is behavioral consequence — what happens to the trace or the waiting caller if this is never called — which an agent might reasonably want to know.

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 100%, so every parameter including trace_id, success, summary and in_workspace is already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning about parameter values or interaction between success and summary, so the baseline 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 object: report that an agent run is over, scoped to runs handed over by DialogBrain (Claude Code tasks or external-agent runs). That is enough for an agent to identify it, but it never names the nearest siblings (agents_trace_get, agents_activity, job_complete) to draw the boundary 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?

'Call this when you finish processing it' gives a clear trigger condition tied to task completion. It stops short of exclusions or alternatives — nothing says what to call instead for non-DialogBrain jobs (e.g. job_complete) or what to do if the run fails partway.

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