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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and 'without changing anything' merely restates that. The description does add value by enumerating the aggregate contents (setup, rent schedules, options, readiness) and giving the underlying route, but says nothing about payload size, pagination, or errors.

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?

Two compact sentences; the substantive content comes first and the route/operation-id metadata trails it. No filler, though the operation-id sentence is utility metadata rather than description.

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?

With no output schema, listing the sections returned is genuinely helpful, and the note that describe_operation carries native request schemas is useful. Still, the undocumented 'query' parameter and lack of any return-shape detail leave gaps for a nested-object read tool.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It only conveys lease id via the ':id' path template; the generic 'query' object is not explained at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (inspect) plus the concrete resources returned: accounting setup, rent schedules, options, and measurement readiness, scoped to a lease by id. This distinguishes it from narrower siblings such as the dedicated rent-schedule or measurement endpoints, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'without changing anything' implies this is the safe read path, and the listed payload hints at when an agent would want it (checking measurement readiness before posting). But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the parallel per-topic endpoints an agent might prefer.

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