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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description carries the real behavioral burden by disclosing the multi-step side effects (evidence hashing/storage, scope revocation, escrow settlement) and the 409 failure mode. It does not cover idempotency or what a successful completion returns, and 'revokes scopes' sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, though that flag plausibly refers to data destruction rather than access revocation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effects, then the routing rule and error case. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical '(mock or real)' and repeated 'completed' phrasing are mildly redundant.

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 multi-step mutating job-lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description covers triggers, effects, and the key error path. It stops short of describing the settlement result or partial-failure behavior, which an agent might want before committing.

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 jobId and message are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax, format, or constraints for either. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Complete a job') and enumerates the concrete lifecycle it performs: gather audit trail, build SHA-256 evidence bundle, store evidence, revoke scopes, settle escrow. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like operator_update_job_status and pcc_job_settlement.

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?

States both the primary when-to-use ('This is how a job run through execution scopes is finished') and an explicit when-NOT-to-use, naming the sibling (operator_update_job_status) and the resulting 409 response. An agent cannot misroute this call.

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