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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of return shape, whether results are per-period or lease-wide, pagination, or filtering behavior. Since the annotation bar is lower here, a 2 reflects a purely restated path with no added 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?

Extremely short but not efficient: the same URL sentence appears twice back-to-back, and the operation-ID string is filler for an agent that already sees the tool name. Nothing is front-loaded in meaningful prose.

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, so the description should describe what comes back, and it does not. For a read endpoint nested under a specific lease with an untyped query parameter, an agent still cannot tell what data it will receive or how to shape the query, making the definition inadequate despite the simple two-parameter signature.

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 description supplies zero parameter detail — it does not explain the required leaseId (beyond the path placeholder) nor the free-form 'query' object whose property names are unconstrained. With a low-coverage schema and an undocumented open-ended query bag, the description should compensate and does not.

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 URL path repeated verbatim twice: 'GET /api/cam/leases/:leaseId/ap-expenses.' It never states in prose what an AP expense record on a CAM lease is or how this differs from the many sibling lease sub-resource endpoints (clauses, disputes, notes, overrides, rent credits). Only the path tokens hint at the resource.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the only directive is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas,' which routes to a schema-discovery tool, not to a usage decision. With dozens of sibling get_cam_leases_by_leaseId_* endpoints, an agent gets no help choosing this one over e.g. get_cam_lease_allocations_by_leaseId or get_expenses_by_lease.

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