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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the lease semantics and the notable stale-lease release behavior when the task is assigned to the current worker, which is useful beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the alternative tool guidance and behavioral nuance each earn their 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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it does, when to use it, and an important behavioral effect. It does not explain what happens if the task is not assigned to the worker, but this is a minor gap given the clarity provided.

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 100%, and the schema already describes task_id, worker_id, and lease_seconds along with defaults and constraints. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Take a lease') and resource ('a specific task by id'), immediately clarifying what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from pull_next_task by noting the key difference: claim by known ID rather than pulling the next task.

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 explicitly says to use this tool instead of pull_next_task when the task_id is already known. This gives the agent a clear selection rule relative to its most relevant sibling.

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