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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structural context: that the dashboard is live/interactive, that it opens a lease drill-down, and critically that text and structured results work without UI support — that fallback note matters for an agent deciding whether the call is usable headless. It doesn't cover result size limits or how pagination totals behave.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. "Opens lease drill-down" is slightly clipped and would benefit from one clarifying clause, but nothing here is redundant.

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 no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description should say more about what comes back — what fields a lease row contains, whether paging metadata is returned. The "text and structured results" note signals dual output but not its shape, leaving a modest gap for a read tool the agent will call blind.

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 carry the burden, and it does map all three parameters: "search identifiers/sites" → q, "filter status" → status, "paginate" → page. It doesn't disclose the status enum values, the 200-char query cap, or page bounds, but every parameter is at least given a purpose that the bare schema does not provide.

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?

"Find and review organization leases in a live interactive dashboard" gives a concrete verb (find/review) and resource (organization leases) plus a distinct mode (interactive dashboard) that separates it from the raw get_leases family. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer, so an agent still has to guess against view_accounting_dashboard or get_portfolio_matrix.

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?

The mention of searching identifiers/sites and filtering by status implies the browse-once-use-case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative among the large set of lease/dashboard siblings. An agent can infer the intended scenario but is given no routing rule or exclusions.

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