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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not say what the cycle-config contains, whether it returns computed vs. stored values, or whether anything is materialized. The single useful addition is the describe_operation pointer, which is minimal.

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?

Short, but wastefully so: the same endpoint string is duplicated back-to-back with no additional information in the repetition. It is front-loaded only in the trivial sense that there is one sentence of content.

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 tool with a nested free-form query object, 0% parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description supplies nothing an agent needs to actually call it correctly. An agent would have to fall back to describe_operation for every invocation, which is exactly the gap the description should have filled.

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%: leaseId has only length constraints and the 'query' object is an unconstrained free-form bag. The description does not mention either parameter, let alone explain the expected leaseId format or what valid query keys exist. With low coverage the description was obligated to 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 restates the tool title verbatim ("GET /api/cam/leases/:leaseId/cycle-config") twice and never explains what a lease 'cycle-config' actually is or what the response represents. It identifies a method and path but conveys no meaning about the resource beyond the opaque slug, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like get_cam_leases_by_leaseId_unified_perio.

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?

The only guidance is the pointer that 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which is a schema-retrieval hint rather than a when-to-use rule. No conditions for selecting this tool over the many other cam/lease sub-resource getters are given, and no prerequisites (permissions, whether a lease must exist) are stated.

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