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

Beyond the annotations it discloses exclusivity semantics (a second live claim returns 409 naming holder and expiry), lease expiry behavior, that veto blocks completion of a Request until released or expired, that all actions except list write a Board item, and that a bound active Seat with write scope is required. This is exactly the kind of consequence-level detail annotations cannot express.

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 purpose and the sibling alternative, then per-action requirements. The trailing trio of 'except list' qualifiers (side effect / seat+write scope / idempotency) is slightly repetitive but each carries distinct information, so trimming further would lose meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by describing what list returns (claims/signals/waiting, parking count, SLA flags), plus preconditions and conflict behavior. Return shape for the mutating actions is left unspecified, which is the main residual gap.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by adding action-conditional requirements the schema cannot express (which action needs label vs item_id, the request:<request_id> label format for veto, the 24h default lease). It does not add syntax detail for idempotency_key, hence not a 5.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb pair and resource ('List or change the Space Board') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling list_board. It goes further to enumerate every accepted action (list, claim, signal, waiting, veto, release), so an agent knows the full surface without opening the 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?

It explicitly routes reads to the alternative ('Prefer list_board for a read-only list') and states which parameters each action requires (label for claim/signal/waiting, request:<request_id> label for veto, item_id for release). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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