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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the useful operational fact that no lease is needed, contrasting with lease-consuming siblings. It also clarifies the response is a rollup rather than a log, which is behavioral context not in 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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields, followed by the use case and then the boundary against the Activity log. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and clarifying the current lease's presence. Combined with the no-lease and read-only notes, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates: it explains that passing inboxId targets one inbox and omitting it returns every connected inbox, which is exactly the default behavior the bare schema does not convey. Nothing about the single parameter is left ambiguous.

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 names the concrete resource (the triage-lease rollup) and enumerates the exact fields returned (lastTriageStartedAt/EndedAt/By/Summary and triageLease), with clear scope of one inbox vs all. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the per-action Activity log, so an agent can separate it from event-level siblings.

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 concrete decision contexts (is a pass overdue, in progress elsewhere, what did the last pass do) and an explicit exclusion ('per-action events ... are on the Activity page, not here'). It stops short of naming sibling tools such as begin_triage or heartbeat_triage, so the routing signal is contextual rather than exhaustive.

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