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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond an operation ID and a schema pointer—no detail on what 'active' means, filtering, or return shape.

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?

It is short, but the same path is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste rather than concision. Front-loading is fine but the content is redundant and uninformative.

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 GET tool with a required path param and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what 'active clauses' returns and how the query object is used. With 0% param coverage and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps.

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 there are two parameters (params.leaseId required, query object). The description provides no meaning for leaseId or the query object, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 HTTP path, repeated twice. It does implicitly identify the resource (active clauses for a lease) via the path, which somewhat distinguishes it from the sibling get_cam_leases_by_leaseId_clauses_... (all clauses), but there's no natural-language statement of what the tool does.

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 guidance on when to use this versus listing all clauses or other lease sub-resource tools. The only pointer is to describe_operation for schemas, which addresses parameter discovery rather than usage conditions.

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