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 safety is fully covered without help. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether results are paginated, whether documents include metadata or links, or how many are returned. No contradiction with 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?

The text is short, but it wastes a full sentence duplicating the route verbatim and front-loads an opaque URL rather than a meaningful statement of what is returned.

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 and parameters are undocumented, so the description should carry the burden of explaining return shape and filtering; it does neither. The only real information conveyed is the read-only safety profile, which annotations already supply.

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 tool has two parameters (a free-form `query` object and `params.id`). The path fragment implies `:id` is a lease identifier, but the description never explains what `query` accepts or what the id refers to, so it 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 only restates the route twice ("GET /api/leases/:id/documents. GET /api/leases/:id/documents.") without translating it into plain-language purpose. An agent can infer it reads documents belonging to a lease, but nothing distinguishes it from the many sibling document endpoints such as get_leases_by_id_documents_by_documentI... or get_leases_by_id_documents_ai_priority....

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 guidance on when to call this versus the sibling document tools. The only routing hint is that describe_operation 'provides native request schemas,' which is a generic pointer rather than a use case or exclusion.

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