get_printer_lease

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description still adds real substance by explaining the manual-print edge case (manual=true, held by nobody) and the degraded mode when Moonraker lacks a database component. It does not state renewal/expiry timing or what happens if the lease expires mid-call, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, return fields, edge case, and invocation triggers. The core question is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 restated, yet the description still clarifies the non-obvious manual=true case and the unavailable-coordination failure mode. Combined with the explicit call triggers, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the description correctly spends no words on inputs. It instead describes the shape of the result, which is appropriate; baseline 4 for a parameterless tool.

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?

Opens with a specific, plain-language statement of the resource and question it answers ('who is currently driving this printer'), then names exactly what comes back (holder name, reason, minutes left, whether it is you). The lease-read framing is unambiguous against siblings like acquire_printer_lease, release_printer_lease, and break_printer_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 two concrete invocation triggers: call it first when a write is refused with 'lease_held', and before starting any long job. These are explicit conditions an agent can match on rather than inferred guidance, and the error-code trigger directly routes recovery behavior.

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