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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that this is a non-acquiring read, enumerates the four possible statuses with their meanings, lists the fields returned in each state, warns that release is not proof of success, and states the cost model (1 unit; unknown name = free miss).

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 key distinction is front-loaded and every clause carries information (statuses, fields, semantics, cost). It is dense and slightly awkward with the nested quoted phrases, but there is no filler 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by specifying the return shape (status enum plus per-state fields), the semantic interpretation of each value, and the cost of a miss. An agent can call and interpret the result without any other source.

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 api_key, workspace_id, and name are already fully documented in the schema; the description adds only the edge-case semantics of a never-acquired name, not parameter syntax or format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb and resource (check a lock) and immediately scopes it against the sibling: it does NOT take the lock, unlike aanet_acquire_lock. It further clarifies the exact ambiguity it resolves (free vs. released), which no sibling does.

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 makes the selection condition clear: use this instead of aanet_acquire_lock when you need to distinguish a free lock from a released one. It also gives the follow-up rule to confirm work success via the result file, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when you intend to acquire).

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