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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, ordering of audit entries, or response shape — and merely repeats the path twice.

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?

Extremely short but wastes half its content on a verbatim duplicate of the same endpoint path, and the operation-ID blurb is procedural noise rather than front-loaded purpose.

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 read tool with a nested free-form query param, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs the description to explain parameters and return content. Instead the description defers to describe_operation, leaving the definition largely incomplete for an agent.

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%: leaseId and the free-form query object are both undocumented. The description does not compensate with any explanation of what query accepts or what leaseId refers to, only offloading that to describe_operation.

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 repeats the REST path 'GET /api/leases/:leaseId/amendments/audit-log', from which an agent can infer it retrieves the audit log for a lease's amendments. It never states the purpose in plain language and does not distinguish it from siblings such as get_leases_by_id_audit_logs or get_contracts_by_id_audit_logs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other lease/audit-log endpoints. The only hint is the pointer to describe_operation for request schemas, which is not usage guidance.

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