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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so nothing is added by saying 'GET'. The description discloses nothing about the lease scoping, required identifiers, filtering behavior, or response shape. No contradiction with annotations, but zero added behavioral 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?

Very short but wasteful: the endpoint string is duplicated verbatim and an internal operation ID is presented as if it were useful information. No front-loaded statement of purpose or parameter summary.

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?

Nested free-form query object, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no prose description of inputs or result. An agent cannot determine what to send or what it will receive; the pointer to describe_operation is the only lifeline and pushes all work elsewhere.

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 are untyped containers: a free-form 'query' object with additionalProperties and an empty 'params' object. The description must compensate, but it says nothing about what query keys by-lease expects (e.g. leaseId, period). This is the most consequential gap for an agent trying to call the tool.

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 restates the endpoint path 'GET /api/expenses/by-lease' (twice) and an opaque operation ID. It never states in prose what the tool returns or how it differs from the many sibling expense tools such as get_expenses_by_site or get_expenses_summary. Effectively a tautology of the name/title.

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, when-not-to-use, or sibling alternative is named, even though dozens of near-identical expense/lease tools exist. The single actionable hint is the pointer to describe_operation for native request schemas, which is a workaround rather than usage guidance.

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