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 beyond the operation ID and a generic describe_operation pointer — no pagination, no return shape, no scoping notes.

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, wasting half the text. The remaining content (operation ID, describe_operation pointer) is boilerplate rather than front-loaded substance.

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 tool with an undescribed 'query' catch-all, no output schema, no annotations gaps, and no explanation of what field-date relationships contain, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot tell what it will receive or how to shape the query without calling describe_operation.

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 neither parameter is described in the description: the required lease 'id' and the free-form 'query' object are undocumented. The describe_operation pointer is a weak compensating hint but leaves the agent needing a second call to understand inputs.

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 essentially the endpoint path restated twice plus an operation ID. It names a resource ('field-date-relationships' under a lease id), which is marginally better than a pure tautology, but it never explains what these relationships are or how they differ from the near-identical sibling get_leases_by_id_date_relationships_3f7a9d92f645c121903dab0c.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many lease sub-resource siblings. The only actionable hint is the pointer to describe_operation for native request schemas, which is a schema-discovery aid rather than usage guidance.

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