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 on return shape, error behavior (e.g., 404 for unknown id), or auth requirements, so it contributes no behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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 and wastes the front-loaded position on a REST path rather than a purpose statement. The final clause about describe_operation is the only non-redundant content.

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 exists, so the description should at least indicate what a lease record contains or how errors surface; it does neither. Combined with 0% parameter coverage and no differentiation from numerous sibling lease endpoints, an agent cannot confidently select this tool 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 the description does not mention either parameter. It never explains that the required `params.id` is the lease identifier, its expected format, or what the free-form `query` object is for (expansion/filtering?). With zero documented parameters, the description should compensate and does not.

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 essentially the title restated twice: "GET /api/leases/:id" carries no resource semantics beyond the raw REST path. It does not say what a lease is, what fields come back, or how this differs from the large family of sibling lease-by-id endpoints (documents, audit logs, rent schedules, etc.).

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given; nothing distinguishes it from other get_leases_by_id_* siblings. The only routing hint is that describe_operation exposes native request schemas, which is a schema-lookup pointer 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.