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 rate limits, no data freshness, no pagination, no note on what fields the endpoint returns.

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 length comes at the cost of value: the same endpoint path is duplicated verbatim, and the second sentence is opaque boilerplate about describe_operation rather than information about this tool.

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, 0% parameter documentation, and an opaque resource name, the description should carry real explanatory burden but does not. An agent knows only the URL and that it is a read operation (from annotations), which is insufficient to confidently call it or interpret results.

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 never mentions either parameter. The path template hints that :id is a lease identifier, but the undocumented 'query' object parameter receives no explanation anywhere, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 raw endpoint path 'GET /api/leases/:id/common-control' verbatim, twice. It never explains what 'common control' data is or what the response represents, so an agent cannot distinguish this from sibling tools like get_leases_by_id_common_control_terms or the many other per-lease sub-resource getters.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The only actionable pointer is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas,' which is about schema discovery, not about when this tool should be chosen over siblings.

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