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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what an 'override' record contains, whether results are paginated or filtered, or any volume/cost characteristics. The pointer to describe_operation is the sole added value.

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 same sentence appears twice with zero added information, which is pure waste. The only non-redundant element, the describe_operation pointer, is buried at the end rather than front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a nested open-ended query object, the description carries the full explanatory burden and fails to meet it. It never says what an override is, what shape the response takes, or how the query object should be used.

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 parameters. The path template implicitly maps leaseId to params.leaseId, but the description never explains the identifier's format or scope. The free-form 'query' object accepts arbitrary additional properties and is completely undocumented, leaving an agent with no idea what filtering is supported.

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 REST path repeated verbatim twice, which merely restates the name and title rather than explaining in plain language what the tool returns. An agent can infer that it fetches override records scoped to a CAM lease, but 'overrides' is never defined and no distinction from the many sibling lease sub-resource tools (allocations, clauses, cycle config, disputes) is drawn.

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 call this tool versus the dozens of other get_cam_leases_by_leaseId_* endpoints. The only guidance offered is a redirect to describe_operation for request schemas, which is a discovery hint, not usage context or exclusion criteria.

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