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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about payload size, pagination, permissions, or what the terms response contains, and the duplicate path line adds no 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 identical endpoint sentence is pasted twice back-to-back, pure redundancy. What remains is a single metadata sentence about the operation ID and describe_operation, so there is no front-loaded purpose statement worth reading.

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 nested-object GET with an undocumented query parameter, no output schema, and no annotations explaining response shape, the description is not complete enough to call the tool confidently. It omits return value structure, filtering behavior, and error conditions entirely.

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 provides no parameter explanations. The ':id' path fragment only echoes the schema's already-named 'id' property, and the undocumented 'query' object parameter gets no mention at all, so the description fails to 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 is a bare restatement of the endpoint path, repeated twice, which essentially duplicates the tool name and title. It conveys only that this is a GET on a lease's common-control terms collection, with no explanation of what 'common control terms' are or what the resource contains.

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?

The only actionable guidance is the pointer that describe_operation provides native request schemas, which is a schema-discovery hint rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing distinguishes this tool from the many sibling lease sub-resource getters, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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