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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing about the response shape, whether it paginates, or what 'reporting sources' means, leaving the behavioral burden entirely on structured fields.

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 is two identical sentences back to back, which is pure waste, followed by a boilerplate pointer to describe_operation. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the path itself.

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, no parameter descriptions, and no explanation of the resource, an agent cannot tell what it will receive or how to interpret the two path IDs. The definition is far too thin for a nested-object, two-path-parameter GET.

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 must compensate, but it only echoes the path placeholders (:leaseId, :id) without explaining what identifiers are valid or what the optional 'query' object is for. The nested-parameter semantics remain undocumented in both places.

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 only the raw endpoint path repeated twice, so it merely restates the tool name rather than explaining what a 'rent-reporting-sources' resource is. An agent can infer it retrieves rent reporting sources for a supplemental rent record under a lease, but the definition adds no clarification beyond the URL.

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 that 'describe_operation provides native request schemas,' which points to a helper rather than stating when to use this tool versus the many sibling supplemental-rent endpoints. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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