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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered structurally. Beyond that the description adds nothing about scoping, filtering behavior, or result shape for a matrix-style aggregate endpoint — the only added information is the pointer to describe_operation.

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 route string is duplicated verbatim, wasting the description's most prominent position. Only the final clause about describe_operation carries any 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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a permissive nested query object, the description should explain what the matrix returns and how to pass filters. It does neither, leaving an agent unable to construct a meaningful call without falling back to 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% with two free-form object parameters (query, params), including a nested additionalProperties query object. The description supplies no parameter names, formats, or supported query keys, so it fails to compensate 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 just repeats the HTTP route 'GET /api/leases/critical-date-matrix' twice, which is a tautological restatement of the name/title. It never explains what a 'critical date matrix' contains or how it differs from the sibling get_contracts_critical_date_matrix.

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 actionable sentence is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which points at a discovery sibling but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no differentiation from the many other lease GET tools.

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