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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination, filtering behavior, response shape, or permission/auth notes.

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 size comes from duplication: the endpoint path is stated twice and a boilerplate note about operation IDs follows. No information is front-loaded because there is essentially no 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 read tool with two undocumented parameters, a nested query object, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the resource and parameter intent. Instead it defers everything to describe_operation, leaving the agent dependent on a second call.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about the required leaseId or about the free-form query object. An agent cannot tell from this text what the query parameter accepts or how to shape it.

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 reproduces the endpoint path verbatim and then repeats it word-for-word; this is essentially the title restated, not an explanation of what lease modifications are or how the result differs from siblings such as get_modifications_by_modificationId or get_modifications_pending.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The only actionable hint is that describe_operation exposes native request schemas, which tells the agent how to fetch metadata, not when to choose this tool over the many other lease/modification endpoints.

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