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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool is public, requires no authentication key, and returns lease lifecycle states. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid or unknown lease IDs, data freshness, or whether any side effects occur, which leaves some ambiguity for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the key usage context and authentication note. Every sentence 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?

For a simple one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, possible statuses, the intended consumer, and the absence of auth requirements. It is slightly thin on what exactly the response looks like and how errors are handled, but the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 documenting the lease_id parameter. It implies that the lease_id identifies the lease whose status is checked, and 'No key required' helps clarify that lease_id is not an API key. But the description never explicitly mentions lease_id, its format, or how to obtain a valid lease ID, leaving the parameter under-explained.

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 identifies the tool as a status check for a lease, enumerating the possible states (active / expired / revoked) and the polling use case. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with siblings like vigil_verify_lease or vigil_leases, but the 'public status' framing gives it a distinct identity.

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 provides clear usage context: this is what a gateway polls for revocation, which tells an agent when to choose this tool. It also states that no key is required, a useful prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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