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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context about inspecting leases before acquisition or recovery, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination limits or how leases are listed, though those details are partially covered by the input schema.

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 description is very short and front-loads the key parameter hint ('id=space') before the main purpose. It is efficient and scannable, though the compressed 'id=space' phrasing is slightly cryptic and could be clearer without adding much length.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with fully described parameters and annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential operating context: it reads leases, exposes token/expiry, and is intended for pre-acquisition or recovery checks. There is no output schema, but the description names the core returned concepts, so an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds a compact hint ('id=space') that may clarify the role of the required id parameter, but it does not meaningfully enrich understanding of limit, cursor, detail, or max_tokens beyond the schema.

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 description names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('named resource leases'), and the key data those leases expose ('token and expiry'). It also states the operational intent ('before acquiring or recovering from uncertain delivery'), which is concrete and distinguishes this read-only inspection tool from mutation-oriented siblings like space_resource_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?

The phrase 'before acquiring or recovering from uncertain delivery' clearly identifies when this tool should be used. While it does not name an explicit alternative or explicitly state when not to use it, the context strongly implies the adjacent acquisition flow, giving the agent actionable timing guidance.

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