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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the path — no scope, no pagination, no auth requirements, no statement of what settings are exposed.

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 very short text is wasteful rather than concise: the same endpoint path is duplicated verbatim, and the operation ID hash consumes space an agent cannot act on.

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?

No output schema and no annotation-derived context in prose, combined with an opaque free-form query parameter, means an agent cannot tell what this call returns or how to filter it. The description is incomplete for even a trivial read endpoint.

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% with two parameters: an unconstrained free-form `query` object and an empty `params` object. The description does not document any accepted query keys or filters, only redirecting to describe_operation, which leaves the caller unable to construct a query from this definition.

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 HTTP path 'GET /api/global-settings/intercompany-leases' twice; it never says in prose what this resource is or what reading it returns. The path does imply a global-settings read for intercompany leases, but among ~15 get_global_settings_* siblings there is no differentiation of when this one is the right one.

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 alternative is named. The only guidance-like sentence points to describe_operation for request schemas, which is a parameter-discovery hint 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.