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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: the 32 KB size limit, redaction of secret-shaped fields, a warning not to store secrets or personal data, and that no authentication is required. These are useful constraints not present in the annotations. It does not disclose post-completion state changes (e.g., lease consumption), but the annotations and output schema partially cover that.

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 concise, with the primary purpose stated first, followed by constraints and security notes. It is not overly verbose, though it is broken into multiple short sentences, which slightly fragments the flow. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (lease lifecycle, multiple parameters, output schema present) and minimal annotations, the description covers key operational constraints: size limit, redaction, storage guidance, and auth requirements. It lacks an explicit note on the lease's terminal state or error conditions, but the output schema and sibling context mitigate this. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including format and constraints for key, owner_token, namespace, and result. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions the owner token requirement, which is already in the schema. Thus, the description does not enhance beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Finish owned work') and resource (owned work with a lease), and explains the outcome (save a reusable JSON result for later callers with the same identity and fingerprint). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lease operations like acquire_lease or release_lease by focusing on completion and storage.

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 usage for completing a lease after work is done, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as release_lease (abandoning) or renew_lease (extending). While the sibling names suggest context, the description lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate choice.

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