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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the fail-closed conditions (expiry, version movement, changed intended action, bad signature, unreadable record) and explains version-based detection including the A→B→A case. It does not state side-effect or permission characteristics, and with no output schema the success/failure payload shape is only hinted at ('returns allow').

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 stage/role is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by mechanics, timing, and failure modes in descending priority. Every sentence adds a distinct fact; there is no filler.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema verification tool, the description covers when to call, what it checks, and how it fails. The main residual gap is the return contract beyond 'allow' (what a denial actually returns), which matters given there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that the leases are the ones produced by check_premises and must still hold live, and that intended_action must match the earlier call by identity. That framing explains the intent of both parameters rather than restating their types.

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 (re-checks leases from check_premises against the live record) and positions itself precisely as 'Stage 2 of the pre-action guard', which cleanly separates it from the stage-1 sibling check_premises. The agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit timing rule ('Call this immediately before the external action, not earlier') and names the prerequisite tool whose output it consumes. The condition that selects this tool over check_premises is unambiguous.

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