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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the shape of the payload (tenants, cosigners, account details, move-out data) and mapping to the underlying GET /v1/leases/{leaseId} endpoint, which helps the agent anticipate the response. It omits auth/rate-limit details, but none are strictly required here.

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, front-loaded with the operation and its payload, followed by the endpoint mapping. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully compensates by naming the included sub-resources. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only error/not-found behavior is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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% for the single lease_id parameter (integer, >0), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, 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 ('Fetch one lease by id') and scopes it as a single-record retrieval, which separates it from buildium_list_leases without needing to open either schema. It also enumerates the included sub-resources (tenants, cosigners, account details, move-out data).

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 word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling buildium_list_leases, so the intended usage is inferable. However, no alternative is named explicitly and there are no stated preconditions or exclusions (e.g. what to do if the id is unknown).

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