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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of return shape, not-found behavior, permissions, or why the route is duplicated. Its only contribution is pointing at describe_operation, which is a workflow hint rather than behavioral context.

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 description wastes its limited length repeating the identical route sentence twice and appending an opaque internal operation ID. Only the final clause about describe_operation carries any value, and it 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, a nested `query` object, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition should explain the id semantics and the response, but it does not. The single useful pointer (describe_operation) is insufficient to call this tool 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%, so the description must carry the param burden and does not: it never mentions the required `id` path parameter or the free-form `query` object. The schema at least fixes the `id` type and length bounds, so it is not a complete void, but no semantic meaning (e.g., what the id refers to) is added anywhere.

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 a verbatim restatement of the title/route ("GET /api/lease-summary-templates/:id") with no added semantics about what a lease summary template is or what this fetch returns. An agent can infer 'retrieve one lease summary template by id', but only because the title already says so, not because the description explains it. Nothing distinguishes this from the similarly named siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative; the sibling get_lease_summary_templates_04ffdc11... (collection list) is never referenced. The only routing hint is the trailing note that describe_operation provides native request schemas, which implies a lookup step but not when this tool should be chosen.

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