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 structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about what happens when the lease has no terminations, whether results include terminated/voided records, or pagination behavior. The pointer to describe_operation is a tooling hint, not behavioral disclosure.

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 single substantive sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting the entire first half of a very short description. Brevity is not the problem here — the space is used redundantly rather than front-loading useful 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return shape or at least what a termination record is, and it does not. With two parameters at 0% coverage and an open-ended `query` object, an agent cannot call this confidently 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%, so the description carries the full burden and fails: leaseId is undocumented beyond the `:leaseId` path placeholder, and the free-form `query` object parameter receives no mention at all — an agent would not know what query capabilities exist. The path template gives marginal signal about leaseId being a required path segment.

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 restates the tool name/title verbatim (an HTTP method plus path) with no expansion: 'GET /api/terminations/lease/:leaseId' appears twice and nothing explains what a 'termination' record contains or what the response represents. An agent can infer the resource is 'terminations scoped to a lease' from the path, but this is tautology rather than clarification, and no sibling (e.g. get_terminations_by_terminationId, get_terminations_pending) is differentiated.

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 retrieval versus get_terminations_pending or get_terminations_by_terminationId, both of which are adjacent in the toolset. The only actionable hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which points to a discovery tool rather than describing conditions for selecting this one.

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