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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description isn't burdened with safety disclosure. It still adds genuine behavioral context: output is labelled per Location, unreachable Locations are reported as skipped, and blank location resolves to all-or-only Location. Missing only rate/size limits for the top-N and date-range scans.

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 definition before the sibling comparison and location caveat, and each sentence carries content. Minor noise from the inline artifact '(LeaseExpiration, 76)' and dense parenthetical stacking, but nothing that obscures the meaning.

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 7-param analytical tool the return shape is covered by the output schema and the safety profile by annotations, so the remaining burden is parameter guidance — where the description leaves six of seven params unexplained. Adequate but with a clear gap for an agent trying to use dates or portfolio scoping 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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load — and it only fully documents `location` (ID, comma list, 'all', blank default). `top_n`, `start_date`, `end_date`, `as_of_date`, `portfolio`, and `property_ids` get no explanation of format, interaction, or whether dates filter the expiration window versus the rent comparison.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope ('lease renewal + below-market rent gap analysis') and enumerates the exact metrics produced: active/m2m/renewed/on-notice counts, 30/60/90-day expirations, market-vs-current rent gap, top-N lists. It also names the nearest sibling (lease_expirations) and says what differentiates it.

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?

Explicitly routes between itself and lease_expirations ('API-based and lighter' vs 'adds the market-rent column... needed for pricing decisions'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating conditions where this tool should NOT be used (e.g., if market rent data is missing) but the alternative selection is clear.

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