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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description says nothing beyond that: it does not indicate the output format of the draft, whether jurisdiction-specific clauses are generated, or what happens with omitted optional fields like utilities or lateFee.

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?

Three words contain no filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded explanation of what the draft contains or requires. A tool with six required fields and 15 total parameters cannot be adequately framed in a noun phrase.

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 15 parameters, six of them required, no output schema, and near-zero schema description coverage, the definition is far too thin for correct invocation. An agent has no way to know what the tool returns, how the lease is formatted, or how the many optional fields affect 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?

Schema description coverage is only 13% across 15 parameters (only rent and governingLaw are documented in-schema), so the description carries the burden of compensating — and it provides zero parameter information. Field meanings such as rentDueDay, holdoverNoticeDays, lateFeeAfterDays, and the enum semantics of pets/smoking/utilities are left entirely unexplained.

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?

"Lease agreement draft" only restates the tool name/title (business_lease_draft / Business Lease Draft) and adds no verb or scope. It does not distinguish this from close siblings such as business_rental_application, business_eviction_notice_draft, or business_contract_pack.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the other business document-drafting siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. jurisdiction, required party details). The only implied usage is that an agent wants a residential/commercial lease drafted, which is inferred from the name rather than the description.

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