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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of error conditions (e.g. unknown leaseId), no pagination or filtering, no indication of what the 'terms' object includes. With annotations carrying the safety story the bar is lower, but the description contributes essentially nothing.

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 single sentence is duplicated verbatim, so half the text is pure repetition. The operation-ID note is useful metadata; the doubling is waste.

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, the schema documents neither parameter, and the name is unrecoverably generic within a family of hundreds of sibling endpoints. For a parameterized GET on a write-adjacent concept ('amendment manual terms'), the description should at minimum define the resource and the leaseId path binding; it does neither.

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 never mentions the leaseId parameter or the free-form query object. The only parameter signal is the ':leaseId' placeholder embedded in the repeated URL, which at least tells the agent a lease identifier is required, but nothing about its valid values or how query filters are applied.

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 raw endpoint path twice and adds nothing semantic: it never explains what 'amendment manual terms' are or what the response contains. Because the sibling list contains two near-identically named tools (get_leases_by_leaseId_amendment_manual__84b246..., ...a33db8...), an agent gets no basis for telling this one apart. Only the HTTP verb in the path hints at a read operation.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing guidance. The single useful pointer is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which tells the agent where to go for a fuller schema but not when to select this operation.

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