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 fully covered by structured metadata. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no auth/permission requirements, no indication of result size or default ordering for a list endpoint.

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 brief text is wasted: the endpoint path is duplicated verbatim in the first two sentences. The only genuinely useful content (the describe_operation pointer) is buried at the end instead of being front-loaded.

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 list endpoint with a fully opaque free-form query object, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations explaining returns, the description does almost nothing to make the call actionable. It offloads the entire request contract to a separate describe_operation call without saying when that call is needed.

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 (a free-form `query` object and an empty `params` object) carry no documented meaning. The description compensates only by telling the agent that "describe_operation provides native request schemas," which is a pointer to another tool rather than any explanation of what `query` accepts or how filters should be formed.

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 merely restates the tool name and the endpoint path twice ("GET /api/payment-portal/lessor-leases"), which is a tautology rather than an explanation. An agent can infer it lists lessor leases in the payment portal, but nothing states what a "lessor lease" contains, what scope or filters apply, or how it differs from get_leases_eeab45c45fa700898de650fe or get_payment_portal_collection_overview_869ea0bab16fded323be0c67.

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 routing is given. The only actionable sentence points the agent at describe_operation for request schemas, which is a schema-discovery hint rather than guidance on selecting this tool over its many payment-portal and lease siblings.

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