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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the state machine (waiting vs signing vs active vs terminal failures) and what 'waiting' actually means about the human's side. It stops short of stating polling cadence or how long states persist before expiring.

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 action, with no filler. The parenthetical explanations of each status are dense but each carries distinguishing information, so the density is justified rather than wasteful.

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 the description is not obligated to explain return values, and the state enumeration it does provide is a useful bonus. Minor gap: no guidance on polling frequency or how long to wait before a rent is considered expired.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'The intent_id start_rent returned.' The description reinforces the provenance of the id but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ('Reports where a rent started by start_rent stands') and explicitly enumerates the six possible outcomes, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_name or get_lease_terms. The tie back to start_rent makes the scope unambiguous.

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 trigger condition: 'Poll it after handing over approval_url,' which tells the agent both when to call this tool and what the human handoff looks like. The status list implicitly documents when a terminal state (failed, expired, taken) means the agent should stop polling.

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