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 fully covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the boilerplate operation ID and a pointer to describe_operation — no mention of pagination, response shape, or permission requirements.

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 endpoint path is duplicated verbatim for no reason, and the remaining sentence is meta-boilerplate. There is no front-loaded explanation of purpose, so the text is wasteful rather than concise.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain the query filters and return shape. It does neither, leaving the agent dependent on separate describe_operation calls.

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 both the leaseId path parameter and the free-form query object. The description does not explain what the query parameter accepts or that leaseId is the CAM lease identifier, so it fails 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 only repeats the endpoint path 'GET /api/cam/leases/:leaseId/notes' twice, which restates the name and title rather than explaining what a 'note' is or what the response contains. An agent can infer it fetches notes for a lease, but nothing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cam_leases_by_leaseId_clauses_d2276d195b59f2ecda19a5b9 beyond the URL segment.

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 guidance, no preconditions, no alternatives. The only actionable pointer is that 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which is a general reference, not usage guidance for this tool.

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