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 that: no information on the shape of the returned clause list, filtering/pagination behavior, or what happens when a lease has no clauses.

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 single content sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste rather than conciseness. The remaining sentence is an operation-ID bookkeeping note that does not help an agent decide or call correctly.

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 no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and many similarly named siblings, the description should at minimum explain the returned resource and the available query options. It supplies neither, leaving describe_operation as the only route to usable detail.

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, so the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it. The path fragment implies that 'leaseId' identifies the lease, but the free-form 'query' object is completely unexplained — no mention of supported filters, expansion options, or pagination keys.

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 title/endpoint path ('GET /api/cam/leases/:leaseId/clauses') with the same sentence duplicated. It does imply that clauses for a given lease are retrieved, but it adds no plain-language statement of purpose and does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as get_cam_leases_by_leaseId_clauses_activ_ee5d8afe19fca82e9bdf253f or get_cam_clauses_by_id_categories_8ce710a2ffe320a12bfe0d11.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only directive — 'describe_operation provides native request schemas' — is a hint about retrieving parameter documentation, not about tool selection, so an agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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