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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving the description to carry behavioral detail. It discloses billing behavior (charges original credit cost), failure mode for insufficient balance (entry stays in DLQ, returns error), and error condition when entry is missing (already retried or discarded). It also states the access requirement. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives an agent full expectation of side effects.

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 sentences, each dense with information: the core action, the billing/error semantics, and the success/error conditions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the billing side effect, both failure modes (insufficient credits and missing entry), and the required permission. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly, including how to recover from failure (top up and retry).

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 schema already describes the id parameter as 'Dead-letter entry id from list_dlq' with 100% coverage. The description does not add new semantic detail about the parameter itself, only about tool behavior under certain id states. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource statement: 'Re-enqueue a DLQ entry to the main relay stream and delete it from the DLQ.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling discard_dlq_entry (which discards without re-enqueueing) and get_dlq_entry (which only reads). The action is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use it (retrying a DLQ entry) and states a prerequisite ('Requires edit access'). It also notes failure conditions (insufficient credits, entry already gone). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative discard_dlq_entry or say 'use this when you want to retry, discard when you want permanent removal.' The guidance is clear but not explicit about alternatives.

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