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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond pointing at describe_operation for request schemas — no note on auth, scoping, whether the schedule is computed or persisted, or what an empty result means.

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 sentences, and the first is duplicated word for word — pure waste. The one useful piece of information (describe_operation) is buried at the end of an operation ID string.

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?

A read endpoint with no output schema, a nested unconstrained query object and 0% schema description coverage needs prose to be callable correctly. Nothing here explains the response shape, filtering via query, or units/periods of the schedule, so an agent must blindly call describe_operation first.

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 parameter burden, and it largely doesn't. The path template at least reveals that 'id' is a lease identifier, which the schema itself never states, but the free-form 'query' object is 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?

The REST path does convey a verb (GET) and a resource (a lease's amortization schedule), and the path token distinguishes it from siblings such as payment_sch or liability_s_ under the same leases/:id family. But the intent is only inferable from a URL fragment, and the sentence is repeated verbatim with no plain-language statement of what an amortization schedule is.

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 only routing hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which tells the agent to make a meta-call but says nothing about when to fetch amortization versus payment schedule or liability schedule, or what preconditions exist.

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