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

Annotations only declare mutation, idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds the substantive behavior: private scope requiring kfa.contribute auth, a two-hour lease on the claim, and the NO_WORK_AVAILABLE terminal sentinel. It is fully consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation class ('Private mutation') and then the single most important constraint (claim ONE job with a lease). Six short clauses, each carrying a distinct operational rule; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter mutation gated by auth and rate limits, the description covers eligibility, lease duration, sentinel termination, idempotency key reuse, and a prohibited alternative strategy. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed here.

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 coverage is 0% for the single operation_id parameter, and the description compensates by explaining its role as a reusable readback key ('Reuse operation_id for readback'), which the schema's bare string constraint does not convey. It stops short of stating the idempotency contract outright (e.g. whether repeating the same id returns the same claim), leaving one small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (claim a research job) plus the exact scope: ONE highest-priority eligible gap with a two-hour lease. This clearly separates it from the sibling read/renew/submit tools (get_research_job, renew_research_job, submit_research_job_result) without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives explicit eligibility ('Enrolled researchers only, kfa.contribute required'), explicit stop condition ('NO_WORK_AVAILABLE means stop'), explicit frequency cap ('one claim per hourly run'), and an explicit anti-pattern ('Never reconstruct the work queue from search'). When-to-use and when-to-stop are both covered.

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