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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the answer comes from the ledger's authoritative view, what fields it reports, and the per-call cost (~$0.01/call), which no structured field conveys.

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 compact sentences with the substantive payload front-loaded and the cost note trailing. Nothing is padded, though the price line is a separate concern from the operation description.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still helpfully previews the returned fields, and payment handling is covered by the schema. The only real gap is operational context — when in the lease lifecycle to call this versus the other lease tools.

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 both lease_id ('Lease to inspect.') and the optional payment_signature are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or source guidance for either parameter, so the 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 and resource ('Read the ledger's view of a lease') and enumerates exactly what the read yields: consumed uses with nonces/timestamps, remaining authority, and live/expired/revoked state. This implicitly separates it from the write-oriented siblings (vc_lease_issue, vc_lease_consume, vc_lease_revoke), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than instructed: an agent can infer this is the inspection call to run before/after lease mutations, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement of which sibling to pick instead. Preconditions (e.g., needing a lease_id from vc_lease_issue) are not stated.

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