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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on scoping, filtering, pagination, or what a 'gap' result contains.

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 first two sentences are a verbatim duplicate of the same endpoint string, which is pure waste rather than efficient front-loading. The only substantive content is the operation ID and the describe_operation pointer.

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 no output schema and fully undocumented nested parameters, the description supplies only a pointer to describe_operation. An agent can construct the URL but has no idea what the response represents or how to constrain the query object.

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 explains neither the required 'id' path parameter nor the free-form 'query' object. With two undocumented parameters including a nested open-ended object, the description completely fails to compensate.

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 tool name/path ('GET /api/leases/:id/option-remeasurement-gaps') twice. It adds no verb-level explanation of what an option remeasurement gap is or why an agent would fetch it, which is effectively tautological beyond the URL itself.

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 sole guidance is a pointer to describe_operation for 'native request schemas', which is a delegation, not a when-to-use statement. No alternatives among the many lease sub-resource siblings (e.g., get_leases_by_id_options_by_optionId_*) are mentioned, and no preconditions are given.

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