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 behavior, no result shape, no ordering or filtering semantics — despite the schema providing no such detail either.

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?

Very short, but the single meaningful sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste. The operation ID suffix is noise for an agent. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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?

With no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and an unstructured nested query object, the description should carry substantial weight. It does not: nothing indicates what the endpoint returns or what the query bag accepts, leaving the agent unable to invoke it confidently beyond the required leaseId.

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% across both parameters ('leaseId' in params and a free-form 'query' object), and the description never mentions either. The free-form query bag is especially opaque — no hint about supported query keys — so the description provides zero compensation for the coverage gap.

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 raw endpoint path 'GET /api/leases/:leaseId/reassessments' twice. It names a resource (reassessments) and a leaseId scope, but conveys no plain-language statement of what the tool returns or what a reassessment is, so it reads as a restatement of the name/title rather than an explanation.

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 guidance is a pointer that 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which is a meta-instruction, not a when-to-use rule. No mention of how this differs from siblings such as get_lease_reassessments_869e75f386f3a30488016b42, get_reassessments_by_id_*, or get_portfolio_reassessments_summary, leaving selection entirely to the agent.

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