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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no pagination, no result ordering, no permission/auth notes, nothing an agent couldn't get from the annotations.

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 first sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting half the text, and the remaining sentence is metadata boilerplate. No real content is front-loaded because there is no substantive content.

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 nested two-parameter resource lookup with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the definition supplies no information about return shape, ordering, or identifier sourcing. It is not sufficient for an agent to call this confidently without falling back to 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% for leaseId and documentId, so the description must compensate, and it does not—it never explains what either identifier refers to or where it comes from. The path template only echoes the parameter names already visible in the schema.

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 raw HTTP path plus title restated twice, so an agent must infer that this returns comments on a specific document attached to a lease. It does not state a plain-language verb+resource or distinguish this from the near-identical sibling get_leases_by_leaseId_documents_by_docu_3c2e047d083f349580beb7ee.

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 only navigational guidance is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas,' which points at a schema-fetching sibling rather than explaining when to use this endpoint versus its variants. There is no if/when/when-not statement or alternative routing.

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