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

Annotations provide only negative hints, so the description supplies useful behavioral context: it changes lease state before TTL expiry, requires the secret owner token, and requires no external authentication. It stops short of explaining failure behavior or side effects on the owner token, but adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences carry exactly the needed information: the operation, the usage condition, and the token/auth context. The main purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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 simple lease-release mutation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the required credentials. No additional context is necessary for selecting and invoking it correctly.

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 100%, so the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters. The description only reinforces that owner_token is a required secret, adding no field-level meaning beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions.

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 specific action, 'Give up a lease before its TTL ends', identifies the resource, and states the intended outcome ('so another agent can acquire the work'). This clearly separates release_lease from sibling operations like complete_lease or renew_lease.

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 explicitly specifies the triggering condition: 'Use it when abandoning work without a reusable result.' This communicates the primary use case, though it does not name a particular alternative tool (e.g., complete_lease) as an explicit contrast, so the guidance is slightly less direct than a full when/when-not statement.

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