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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the key non-exclusive, non-reserving behavior, but doesn't mention other side effects such as idempotency, whether it requires task ownership, or what state changes occur. The announcement's effect remains somewhat vague.

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, all necessary, with the core purpose front-loaded. No redundancy or 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?

The description covers the primary purpose and a key behavioral nuance, but lacks context for the required parameters (taskId, agentId) and any preconditions or constraints. Given the low schema coverage, an agent may not know exactly what values to supply or whether any state requirements exist.

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 only 25% (only eta has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Required taskId and agentId are unexplained, and optional note has no description. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action (announce) and resource (working on a task), and explicitly distinguishes from reservation by saying 'This does NOT reserve it'. This differentiates it from claim_task and similar tools without ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit context for when to use the tool ('Use it so others can see the effort is under way') and explicitly states what it does not do ('does NOT reserve it'), which implies when not to use it. It doesn't name alternatives, but the negation provides sufficient guidance.

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