Retry a stopped lead search

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

The description makes the mutation explicit ('Create a replacement job') and adds a side effect detail (original stays for audit). It does not mention idempotency or permissions, but the annotations already cover the read-only and destructiveness hints, and the description aligns with them.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point, with no unnecessary details or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

The description is complete enough given the output schema exists and the parameters are well-described. It does not cover error cases or output details, but these are not required for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema that add meaning: 'id' is 'Failed or timed-out source job id' and 'jobToken' is 'Private token belonging to the source job'. This exceeds simple name-based inference.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Create a replacement job') and the specific object ('replacement job'), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting the original job stays for audit. It is clear and specific.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('when a prior job failed or exceeded its execution window'), providing a clear condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the condition sufficiently guides usage.

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