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

Annotations only give the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false); the description adds substantial context beyond them: the 403/401 auth outcomes, that a job without a kernel gets 403 for a non-admin, that HTTP 200 does not imply success, and that completed does not yet release escrow (board G1). These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and status values, then flows into authorization and workflow. Dense but each sentence carries operational weight; internal references (DECISIONS 136/138, board G1) add traceability at some cost to readability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers auth, the evidence-then-complete sequence, and the 200-with-stored:false edge case. The main omission is the metadata parameter, which is neither documented in the schema nor the description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does: it states the status enum values and that kernelId cannot select the authorization target. However, jobId and especially the nested metadata object are never described, leaving a real gap.

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 ("Operator reports a job's status") and enumerates the three valid status values, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling update_job_status, though the operator-scoped authority discussion implies the boundary.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-call node workflow (submit evidence first, then set completed only if the receipt says stored: true), names the failure fallback (set failed with evidence_not_stored), and routes the agent away from pcc_job_complete with the reason (409). This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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