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

The annotation only tells the agent this is not read-only. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the call renews the lease for 30 minutes (a significant side effect) and explicitly does not grant approval or execute work. It falls short of stating auth/permission requirements or what a failed/expired lease returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the lease scope, then the side effect, then the negative guarantee. No filler and nothing misplaced.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutation's key side effect (lease renewal) and its limits (no approval/execution) are covered. What's missing for a write tool is prerequisite detail, e.g. what happens if the lease has lapsed.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'do not include credentials' note and the meaning of the approval flag. The description's 'honest progress' framing adds tone but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (report progress) plus the scoping resource (work under your active lease), and explicitly distinguishes itself from adjacent capabilities by noting it 'does not approve or execute anything'. An agent can separate it from siblings like agent.inbox.complete or agent.approvals.request without opening any 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?

Implies the usage context via 'under your active lease' and the optional approval-waiting flag, which tells the agent this is a mid-work status call. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., when to use this vs agent.inbox.complete, agent.inbox.fail, or agent.inbox.release), so the when-not guidance is left to inference.

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