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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - no pagination, filtering, or result-shape context - except the generic describe_operation pointer.

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?

Extremely short, but the opening sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste, and there is no front-loaded statement of purpose beyond the route. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 zero schema description coverage, an opaque nested 'query' object, and no output schema, the description should carry the burden of explaining accepted filters and return content. It only redirects to describe_operation, leaving the agent unable to call the tool correctly without a second lookup.

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%: 'query' and 'params' are untyped pass-through objects with no property documentation. The description compensates only by deferring to describe_operation for native request schemas, which is a useful escape hatch but conveys no meaning about individual parameters itself.

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 just the HTTP route repeated twice; 'GET /api/templates/leases' restates the name and title without saying what a lease template is, what it contains, or how it differs from siblings such as get_templates_contracts or get_lease_summary_templates. An agent learns only that this is a GET on a leases-templates path.

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 is given. The only routing signal is the pointer to describe_operation for native request schemas, which tells the agent how to introspect the endpoint rather than when to pick it over the many sibling template and lease tools.

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