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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no note on pagination, ordering, retention window, or the fact that the :id must be a lease id — offering nothing beyond the structured metadata.

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 identical endpoint sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste, and the only substantive information (operation ID, describe_operation pointer) is buried in a trailing clause 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?

For a read tool with an opaque untyped query object, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves an agent unable to know what filters are supported or what the response contains. It also does not mention the sibling audit-log tooling an agent could confuse it with.

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% for two parameters (a free-form query object and params.id), so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains the query object's purpose despite the nested-object structure, nor does it state that :id is a lease identifier with any constraints.

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 tool name/title ('GET /api/leases/:id/audit-logs'), repeated twice. From the URL path an agent can infer it fetches audit logs for a given lease, but there is no plain-language statement of purpose and nothing distinguishing it from the dozens of sibling 'get_leases_by_id_*' sub-resource tools.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. get_leases_by_id_field_changes or get_contracts_by_id_audit_logs). The only actionable pointer is that describe_operation carries the native request schemas, which is a discovery hint rather than a usage condition.

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