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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint path and the pointer to `describe_operation`, such as auth requirements, pagination, or what kind of leasehold improvement data is returned.

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 description repeats the same endpoint sentence twice, creating redundancy rather than clarity. It is short but not front-loaded with useful selection or invocation guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the return value or the unconstrained query object. Pointing to `describe_operation` for native request schemas is a small aid, but for a two-parameter collection endpoint with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage across two parameters, so the description must compensate, but it does not. The `:leaseId` path segment indicates that `leaseId` is required, but the unconstrained `query` object is completely unexplained and the meaning of `leaseId` is not elaborated beyond the parameter name.

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 endpoint path repeated twice. It identifies the resource as leasehold improvements for a specific lease, but it is tautological against the title and does not distinguish this tool from the nearly identical sibling `get_leases_by_leaseId_leasehold_improve_0f4adbfcd33d53d098d5d354` or the general `get_leasehold_improvements_9c73090a5e86791b9b1ae00d`.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. The agent is left to infer everything from the endpoint path and tool name.

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