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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination, response shape, or tenant/lease scoping; the only extra sentence is a meta-pointer to describe_operation.

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?

Very short, but the first two sentences are byte-identical duplicates, so half the text is pure waste. The useful meta-guidance (operation ID, describe_operation) is tacked on at the end 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?

With zero parameter descriptions, a nested free-form `query` object, and no output schema, this description is materially incomplete — an agent cannot tell what the query bag is for or what comes back without calling describe_operation. It is essentially a machine-generated stub.

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 input schema documents neither `params.id` (a plain string of length 1-2000) nor the free-form `query` object. The description does nothing to compensate: it never explains that `id` is the lease identifier or what filters `query` accepts, even though `query` is an additionalProperties:{} bag whose semantics are entirely undiscoverable.

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 path, 'GET /api/leases/:id/custom-fields/values', repeated twice. It never says in prose that this returns the custom-field values for a specific lease, nor does it distinguish it from siblings like get_leases_by_id_custom_fields_definiti_8dc48ea197dab8b8b657400d, which returns definitions rather than values.

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 guidance is a pointer that 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which tells the agent how to inspect the operation, not when to call this tool versus the dozens of other leases sub-resource GETs. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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