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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond a referral to describe_operation for request schemas — no mention of what the measurement-correction payload contains or how it relates to lease measurement data.

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, one of which is a verbatim duplicate of the other, followed by an operation ID and a meta-note about another tool. There is no waste-free substance here; the repetition is pure noise.

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, and the description does not describe the response shape, required auth, or the semantics of a 'measurement correction' lookup. For a nested-parameter read tool with zero schema coverage, this leaves the agent guessing about both input and return value.

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 carries the burden of explaining the two parameters (params.id and a free-form query object), yet it says nothing about either. Neither the meaning of the lease id nor the accepted query filters is clarified 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?

The description is the endpoint path repeated twice; it names a resource path but never states in plain terms what the operation returns or does. 'GET /api/accounting/leases/:id/measurement-correction' is essentially a restatement of the tool name rather than an explanation, and it does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling leases-by-id endpoints.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling lease sub-resource tools (amortization, classification, journal entries, liability schedules). The only pointer is that describe_operation exposes native request schemas, which is a fallback for schema lookup, not usage guidance.

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