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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the backing endpoint (GET /v1/leases) and the return payload composition, which is useful context. It says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication, which the annotations do not cover either.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the return payload leads, the filter surface follows, and the endpoint tag closes it. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers 15 optional filters adequately through the schema. The only gap is the absence of guidance on paging behavior and on the single-lease alternative, minor for a read-only list tool.

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 all 15 parameters are already documented with types, formats, and ranges. The description mirrors the filter categories and repeats the Active/Past/Future status values that the schema enum already supplies, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List leases') and enumerates the fields the result carries (unit, dates, lease type/status, tenants, rent/deposit accounts, eviction flag), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling buildium_get_lease, leaving the singular/plural distinction to be inferred.

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 description lists every filter dimension (property, owner, unit number, tenant name, dates, lease type/status), which implies when the tool is useful for bulk/scanning queries. However it never states when NOT to use it or points to get_lease for a single-record lookup, so the boundary against the sibling is left unstated.

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