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

The annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: atomicity of the claim, lease semantics ('Returns the leased task'), and a limitation ('call get_task next for the full context bundle'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the workflow step, then the core behavior, then the next-step instruction. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description appropriately explains what the call returns and what to do next. It does not cover failure cases or concurrency behavior, but for its complexity level the operation is adequately specified for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents both worker_id and lease_seconds. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; this is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 ('claim') and resource ('next queued task matching one of the caller's registered workers'). It conveys the atomic behavior and return value. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool claim_task, which is a very close name and likely overlapping purpose, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides clear procedural context ('Step 3 of the Tango working agreement (own it)') and prescribes the immediately following action ('call get_task next...'). This is strong usage guidance, though it does not name alternatives such as claim_task or state when not to use this tool.

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