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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the lease must be CONFIRMED and the call only works within a timing window. It doesn't say what happens if called outside that window (error vs. no-op), which would complete the picture.

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, zero filler, with the primary action and its effect front-loaded and the timing constraint as a compact second sentence.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent action with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers precondition, effect, and timing window. Only the failure behavior outside the window is left implicit.

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% for the single lease_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a modest constraint on the id's referent ('one of your CONFIRMED leases'), implying it must be an owned, confirmed lease, but supplies no format or lookup guidance.

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 ('Activate') and resource ('one of your CONFIRMED leases') with the outcome spelled out: 'so its robot can take commands.' This is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like cancel_lease or return_lease.

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?

Gives an explicit applicability window ('5 minutes before the window starts until it ends') and a state precondition (lease must be CONFIRMED), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It does not name alternatives (cancel_lease, return_lease) or say when not to use it, keeping it short of a 5.

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