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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds the crucial auth requirement ('No key required') and the 'public' nature, which are valuable behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value (status values, polling use, auth requirement). No wasted words.

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 status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description implies the return is the status value. It lacks explicit error handling or response format details, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 100% – the single parameter lease_id is fully described as returned by vigil_grant_lease. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but since the schema handles it, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('public status') and resource ('lease'), enumerates possible values (active/expired/revoked), and identifies its polling purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like vigil_verify_lease by emphasizing 'public' and 'No key required', making its role unambiguous.

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 says 'What a gateway polls for revocation', giving a concrete use case. While it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it versus other lease-related tools (e.g., verifying or granting).

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