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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful non-annotation context in the form of the auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the cursor param, so it only partially extends beyond annotations.

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 opening two sentences are redundant, restating the same field list twice ('Leases with unit, tenants, rent...' then 'Returns leases with the unit, the tenants on them, monthly rent...'), which wastes space rather than front-loading distinct information. The remainder is efficient, so it is serviceable but flawed.

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, the description steps up to describe returned fields, lists the available filters, and explains the lease_id chaining path plus the auth requirement, which is enough to call it correctly. The one gap is pagination behavior for the cursor parameter, keeping it from a 5.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description slightly reinforces semantics ('Search matches unit or tenant name', filterable by status/end date/property) but adds no syntax, defaults, or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (leases) and enumerates the return fields (unit, tenants, rent, dates, balance due), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_tenants/list_units. It stops short of explicitly naming which siblings it is NOT, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than 5.

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?

Provides filter context ('Filter by status, by end date or by property') and a chaining hint ('Use lease_id from here in the other lease tools'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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