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-size limits, no tenancy/scoping notes, no indication of what the free-form 'query' object can do. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context.

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 opening sentence is duplicated verbatim and the operation ID hash is noise for an agent. There is no front-loading of useful information because there is no useful information beyond the describe_operation pointer.

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 listing endpoint with a free-form query object, no output schema, and no response documentation, the description leaves nearly everything unspecified. The single redeeming element is routing the agent to describe_operation for native schemas, which is insufficient on its own for correct invocation.

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% and the two parameters are opaque: 'query' is an unrestricted additionalProperties:{} object and 'params' allows no properties at all. The description names neither, so an agent has no idea what filter syntax or keys are accepted; the only mitigation is the pointer to describe_operation, which is a workaround rather than parameter semantics.

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 literally the tool title restated twice ('GET /api/leases. GET /api/leases.'), which is a tautology rather than an explanation. It does not say that this lists leases, what a lease record contains, or how it differs from the many siblings such as get_leases_by_id_0c975b3ee292145149f87dad, get_leases_stats_overview_82de3f4c87612d02fdf2953c, or get_lease_hold_improvements.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance is given. The only actionable hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which points at the describe_operation sibling but does not say when an agent should call this listing endpoint versus the id-scoped or stats lease siblings.

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