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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no filter semantics for the free-form `query` object, no statement of what is returned or whether the lease must exist. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no extra behavioral context.

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 the identical path repeated twice — pure waste. The only non-redundant content is the trailing clause about describe_operation, which is buried at the end rather than front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description never compensates: it gives no return-value shape, no pagination guidance, and no param semantics for a tool with 0% schema coverage and a required nested `params` object. For a read endpoint on a deeply nested lease resource, an agent cannot call this correctly from the description alone.

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 two parameters, so the description bears the full burden and discharges none of it. The `:id` in the path weakly implies `params.id` is the lease identifier, but nothing explains the free-form `query` object's accepted keys (pagination? filters?), which is exactly the gap the schema leaves open.

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 description is a verbatim restatement of the URL path already embedded in the tool name and title, repeated twice. It conveys that this is a GET of lease classification tests only through the raw path string, with no plain-language statement of what a 'classification test' resource is or what the response represents. Effectively tautological.

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 actionable sentence points at describe_operation for native request schemas, which is a routing hint but not a when-to-use rule. There are at least two siblings keyed on leaseId/classification-tests (get_accounting_leases_by_leaseId_classi_...) and dozens of other lease-by-id sub-resource getters, and the description does nothing to say which to pick or when.

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