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 elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of filtering behavior, default time window, pagination, or result shape. The one useful addition, that describe_operation exposes native request schemas, is a discovery aid rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 repeated verbatim twice, and the opaque operation ID hash occupies a third of the text without helping selection or invocation. The front-loaded path is the only informative element; the rest is duplication and internal bookkeeping.

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 0% parameter documentation, no output schema, and nested undifferentiated query/params objects, the description should explain what the timeline returns and what query keys it accepts. It supplies neither, leaving the agent dependent on describe_operation before it can call this confidently.

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 both parameters ('query' and 'params') are generic pass-through objects with additionalProperties and no documented fields, so the description must compensate and does not. The single clause 'describe_operation provides native request schemas' at least tells the agent where to obtain parameter details, which is why this is not a 1.

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 path 'lease-expiration-timeline' under 'dashboard' conveys the resource broadly, and the GET verb is explicit, but the description never states in prose what the timeline contains (leases expiring over what horizon, per-site or portfolio-wide). It is a raw endpoint restatement rather than a purpose statement, though the path tokens do give an agent a workable guess and distinguish it from siblings like get_dashboard_metrics or get_dashboard_status_breakdown.

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 conditions, no exclusions versus the many other dashboard endpoints (get_dashboard_upcoming_events, get_dashboard_widgets, view_portfolio_dashboard). The only routing hint is a pointer to describe_operation for schemas, which is about mechanics, not about when this tool is the right choice.

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