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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description owes context beyond it. It adds none: nothing about the return payload (schedule rows, period columns), pagination, or whether the schedule reflects generated vs. draft data, even though no output schema exists.

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?

The same endpoint string is repeated twice with zero added information, which is pure redundancy rather than front-loading. The operation-ID/describe_operation sentence is boilerplate, though the pointer to describe_operation has marginal navigational value.

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 domain-specific financial endpoint (ASC 842 lease liability schedule) with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and nested parameters, the description supplies only the route. An agent would need to call describe_operation first to have any chance of invoking this correctly, which is exactly the gap the description should have closed.

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% for two parameters including a nested required 'params.id', so the description carries the full burden and supplies no meaning at all — it doesn't state that 'id' is the lease identifier, what format it takes, or what the free-form 'query' object accepts. The ':id' in the URL is the only implicit hint.

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 only restates the tool name and HTTP path verbatim, twice, with no elaboration of what a 'liability schedule' contains or what the response represents. An agent can infer it retrieves a lease's liability schedule, but the statement is a tautology rather than an explanation, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the many sibling lease sub-resource tools (payment schedule, amortization, classification, measurement).

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing is given; with ~50 similarly named 'get_accounting_leases_by_id_*' siblings, the absence of differentiation is a real gap. The only pointer, 'describe_operation provides native request schemas,' is a meta-tool reference rather than usage guidance for this tool.

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