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 covered. The description adds approval context (org-configurable MCP approval, business workflow approvals always apply), but it is meta-information about the approval layer rather than about what the preview computes or whether reading it has any side effect — a modest addition beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its purpose. The second sentence on approval policy is slightly tangential to the tool's mechanics but is short and relevant to the authorization context.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and with no parameters there is no input surface to document. The remaining need — knowing this is a safe, idempotent pre-authorization read — is covered jointly by the description and annotations, leaving only the exact downstream authorization step unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add. No syntax or scoping information is needed for an empty input object.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read the leasecommand synchronization preview') and anchors it to its role ('before authorizing external changes'). It is clearly distinguishable from the other preview_* siblings (policytrak, incidentvault, quipassist) by the leasecommand qualifier, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them or with refresh_leases.

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?

'Read ... before authorizing external changes' implies the correct point in the workflow, which is real guidance. However, it never names an alternative or states an exclusion — an agent is left to infer whether execute_approved_action, sync_* or retry_leasecommand_webhook_event is the follow-up, and no precedence rule is given.

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