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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the requirement to supply the lease bearer via transport (never in arguments) and the return of terminal status after deletion or expiry. This clarifies auth and edge-case behavior without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical auth instruction is provided separately. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the key non-schema aspects: auth transport and terminal post-deletion behavior. It lacks explicit usage guidance and error handling, but the output schema and annotations fill most gaps, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the inbox_id parameter. It only says 'for one inbox,' which implies inbox_id identifies the inbox but does not clarify its format, origin, or constraints. No extra semantic value is provided beyond what the schema pattern already shows, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 specifies a concrete verb-resource pair (return address, lease status, expiry for one inbox) and adds a distinguishing detail (terminal status after deletion/expiry) that sets it apart from sibling tools like ausca_agent_inbox_read or ausca_agent_inbox_delete. An agent can tell this is a status query, not a message fetch or mutation.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings (e.g., ausca_agent_inbox_read or ausca_agent_inbox_delete). It does not mention prerequisites, alternative selection criteria, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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