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 elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on what the payment schedule contains, whether it is paginated, or what happens when a lease has no schedule.

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 path sentence appears twice back-to-back, which is pure waste, and the operation-ID line is boilerplate metadata rather than useful front-loaded information.

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 nested-object tool with zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description does far too little. An agent still cannot tell what the payment schedule response looks like or how to use the query parameter.

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% and the nested `query` object is entirely undocumented. The path template `:id` implicitly tells the agent the required param is a lease identifier, but the free-form query parameter is left opaque in both schema and description.

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 repetition of the endpoint path, which does imply the operation: fetch the payment schedule for a given lease. However, it is a path restatement rather than a plain-language purpose statement, and with dozens of near-identical lease sub-resource siblings (rent schedules, payments, payment requests), it offers no differentiation.

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 use this versus alternatives such as get_leases_by_id_rent_schedules or get_leases_by_id_payment_requests. The only actionable line is a pointer to describe_operation for schemas, which is a schema hint, not usage guidance.

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