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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered outside the description. The description adds almost nothing beyond that - only the note that describe_operation provides native request schemas, which is mildly useful but concerns invocation mechanics rather than behavior of this call.

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?

It is short, but the first sentence is duplicated verbatim and the second is an internal operation ID plus a generic pointer to describe_operation, so the content is largely filler rather than front-loaded, useful information.

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 tool with two parameters (one nested, fully undocumented) and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned and how to constrain the query object; it does neither. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is present beyond what the name and annotations already convey.

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 compensates for nothing: it never mentions the required leaseId or the free-form 'query' object, nor what filtering/sorting/field-selection that query object accepts. The path template implies leaseId, but that merely repeats the tool name rather than adding meaning.

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 the URL path restated twice verbatim ('GET /api/leases/:leaseId/locations. GET /api/leases/:leaseId/locations.'), which is essentially a tautology of the title. It implies retrieving locations for a lease, but never explains what a 'location' is here (premises, sites, address records) or how it differs from the numerous sibling lease sub-resource tools.

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 is given, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The sibling list contains dozens of closely related GET-by-leaseId sub-resource tools, so an agent is left to infer selection from the path alone; the only pointer is to describe_operation, which is a schema lookup, not usage guidance.

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