poll_event_queue

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

Annotations give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: leases are time-boxed and auto-return on lapse so a crashed agent doesn't strand work. It doesn't explain what 'claimed' state means for other consumers, so not a 5. Note the mild tension between 'claim' (a state change) and readOnlyHint=true, but the auto-expiring lease makes this defensible rather than contradictory.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the one piece of behavioral nuance an agent needs. No filler.

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 not be described. However, with zero schema description coverage, the agent cannot learn the meaning of the four input parameters from the definition or the schema, leaving a real gap for a tool with filtering and batching controls.

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 0% for four parameters (max_items, queue_name, lease_seconds, filter_severity), so the description must carry the load — but it names none of them. 'Time-boxed lease' loosely gestures at lease_seconds, yet max_items, queue_name, and the severity filter are entirely unexplained.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Claim unprocessed events from the proactive triage queue'. It also names the scoping mechanism (time-boxed lease), which cleanly separates it from siblings like push_event, complete_event, and release_event.

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 implies the usage context (pulling work off the queue) and explains lease-lapse behavior, but never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer (e.g., release_event vs complete_event). Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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