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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond pointing at describe_operation for schemas — no mention of pagination, filtering, or what the collection contains, despite being an openWorldHint=false list-style GET.

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?

It is short, but the first sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste. What remains is an operation ID and a cross-reference, so the length reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure.

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, two undocumented nested parameters, and a read-only collection endpoint, the description should explain what is returned and how to shape the query. The only partial compensation is the redirect to describe_operation, which leaves the agent unable to call this confidently from the description alone.

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 opaque objects (a free-form 'query' with additionalProperties and an empty 'params'). The description supplies no parameter meaning at all; the sole mitigation is the generic pointer to describe_operation, which provides no in-place semantics for these two nested parameters.

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 repeats the endpoint path 'GET /api/leasehold-improvements' twice, which restates the tool name and title without saying what a leasehold improvement record is or what the response contains. It is a verb+resource, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as get_leases_by_leaseId_leasehold_improve_0f4adbfc or the other leasehold-improvement variants.

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 use this endpoint versus the lease-scoped leasehold-improvement siblings, nor any prerequisite or filter context. The only actionable hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which tells the agent to look elsewhere for input details rather than when to select this tool.

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