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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It explains what information the tool returns (active status, addresses, tunnels, renewal time), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether any side effects occur, or what authentication requirements exist beyond the access_token parameter. This is a moderate amount of disclosure, but gaps remain.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the key aspects of the returned data. It is front-loaded with 'Everything about one lease' and avoids any unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It enumerates the specific data points (active, addresses, tunnels, renews) without needing to detail an output format. It could be improved by explicitly stating that it is a read-only status lookup, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool's simplicity.

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 sole parameter access_token has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully explains it. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific context, but given the high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic meaning is needed.

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 clearly indicates this is a status/retrieval tool for a single lease, enumerating the specific aspects it covers (active, addresses, tunnels, renews). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform actions like create or renew by implying a read/query operation. The lack of an explicit verb like 'get' keeps it from a 5, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 usage when you need all details about a lease, and the sibling list (order_lease, renew_lease, create_tunnel) suggests this is the query counterpart. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or what conditions warrant it. The usage is easily inferred but not directly stated, so a 3 is appropriate.

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