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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond a duplicate path and the describe_operation reference — no information about permissions, response shape, or behavior specific to percentage rent terms.

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 same endpoint sentence is repeated verbatim, wasting space, and the substantive content is only a pointer to another tool. Front-loading is absent; it is redundant rather than concise.

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 nested-object GET with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. The describe_operation pointer is the only useful element, leaving an agent unable to understand scope or response without a follow-up call.

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 says nothing about what batchId identifies or how the freeform query object is used. It points to describe_operation for native schemas, which offloads the burden rather than adding meaning.

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 endpoint path 'GET /api/pending-imports/:batchId/percentage-rent-terms' twice. While the path implies fetching percentage rent terms for a given batch, there is no natural-language statement of purpose or differentiation from sibling tools like get_pending_imports_by_batchId_rent_tie or source_d.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling pending-imports endpoints. The only routing hint is the pointer to describe_operation for request schemas, which is a technical note rather than usage context.

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