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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say whether the output is returned text, a stored document, or a link, nor what 'client and server side' implies about behavior.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. The trailing 'client and server side from freedailypro' is noise that consumes the only sentence available for meaningful content.

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 six-required-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the agent needs to know what comes back and any formatting expectations. The description supplies neither, leaving key call-shaping details undocumented.

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 six required parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it mentions none of them. The names (landlord, tenant, address, rent, start, end) are mostly self-explanatory, but nothing clarifies rent format, date format for start/end, or currency, which the description should have compensated for.

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 phrase 'Lease agreement draft' identifies the resource and the act of drafting one, which does distinguish it from siblings like business_nda_draft or business_eviction_notice_draft. But the remainder, 'client and server side from freedailypro,' is vendor jargon that adds no meaning, and the description never states what the tool actually produces.

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 indication of when to use this draft versus business_contract_pack or the other business_* draft tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage purely from the name.

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