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 pointing at describe_operation for request schemas; it says nothing about what a draft is, whether drafts are versioned, or how results are ordered/paged.

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?

Two sentences, but the first is duplicated verbatim, and the second is metadata bookkeeping. There is essentially no content for the size allotted; nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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?

A 2-parameter endpoint with 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a nested/free-form query object — this definition supplies none of the missing context. Everything needed to call it correctly is absent from both the schema and the description.

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 documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all — not the required leaseId, and not the free-form 'query' object (additionalProperties: {}), which is exactly the kind of opaque parameter the description should explain.

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 endpoint path and the title ('GET /api/leases/:leaseId/amendment/manual/drafts'), repeated twice. An agent can infer it lists manual amendment drafts for a given lease from the path, but there is no plain-language statement of what it returns and no differentiation from the closely-named siblings on the same path (…amendment_manual__84b24667, …a885bf41), which are presumably other HTTP methods on the same resource.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only actionable instruction is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which is a lookup pointer, not usage criteria.

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