lease

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: session exclusivity ('another agent holds it'), lease renewal semantics, the locked/NEEDS_OPERATOR state machine, and a security constraint ('never ask anyone for a PIN'). It omits what happens on lease expiry or failure to acquire beyond retry, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the lease rule, then organized by outcome (BUSY, NEEDS_OPERATOR, booting, owner-escalation). It is dense but each sentence maps to an actionable decision; a couple of the escalation sentences are long and could be tightened, which is why it falls short of 5.

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 explained, and the state-machine and human-interaction guidance is unusually complete for a session-acquisition tool. The one material gap is the undocumented 'phone' argument, which nothing else in the definition compensates for.

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% and the single required parameter 'phone' is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The text alludes to choosing among phones ('use another phone') but never states the identifier's form, source, or whether it must be a previously seen value, so an agent must guess the argument.

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?

The opening clause states a specific verb and resource — acquiring ('taking') a phone for a session — and immediately defines the lease model ('each action renews the lease'), which is the resource's key behavior. It does not explicitly name the counterpart sibling (release) or reference status, so differentiation from siblings like 'release' is left to inference rather than stated.

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 gives concrete operational routing for the BUSY and NEEDS_OPERATOR outcomes ('try later or use another phone', 'retry lease after a while') and defines when to escalate to a human owner. It never names the sibling tools (release/status) as alternatives, so the guidance covers failure states well but not tool-selection against siblings.

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