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

Annotations establish mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world, but the description adds real context beyond them: the lease 'creates charges on the ledger' (side effect), there is a per-call confirmation default that can be switched off, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. The 'Reaches other people' line is a bit off for a lease record but is still a disclosed behavior rather than a contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, but the first two sentences restate the same field list twice ('New lease on a unit with tenants, term, monthly rent and security deposit' / 'Creates a lease on one unit in a single step: tenants, term, recurring rent...'), and the trailing confirmation/API-key boilerplate is not specific to this tool.

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 mutating, no-output-schema tool the description covers the important gaps: ledger side effects, default confirmation, and auth requirements. It is close to complete, though it omits what happens on failure or whether the created lease ID is returned.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description re-summarizes the parameters ('tenants, term, recurring rent with its due day and an optional security deposit') and clarifies the end_date semantics, but this largely duplicates what the schema already documents for rent and end_date.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a lease on one unit in a single step' with the scoping fields (tenants, term, rent, deposit). An agent can tell it apart from doorloop_create_tenant or doorloop_create_task by the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other lease-related siblings (doorloop_list_leases, doorloop_issue_lease_credit), but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for one field ('Leave end_date empty for a month-to-month lease') and confirmation behavior for the call, but never states when to use this tool versus the surrounding lease/tenant tools, nor the prerequisite ordering (unit and tenants must already exist). Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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