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 no behavioral context beyond the route and an operation ID, and does not mention response shape, pagination, or any endpoint-specific behavior.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but the endpoint path is duplicated verbatim, which wastes space. The operation ID and pointer to describe_operation provide some utility, but the repetition weakens structure.

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 an endpoint with no output schema and undescribed nested parameters, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain what the reporting calendar returns or how the parameters affect the result, leaving the agent dependent on 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%, so the description would need to compensate by explaining leaseId, id, and the optional query object. It only mirrors the path parameters and says nothing about their meaning or about the query parameter.

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 restates the endpoint path already present in the title and tool name, rather than explaining in plain language what the reporting-calendar resource represents. It does identify the verb and route, but adds no meaningful purpose beyond the name/title.

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 versus the many sibling supplemental-rent tools. The only related instruction is to use describe_operation for native request schemas, which does not explain usage context or exclusions.

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