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 two things annotations cannot: the result is a single page (not the full set) and a LEASES read permission is required. What is missing is any statement about response shape, default page size behavior, or what 'next' actually is (token, URL, cursor), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. The parenthetical '(preserves filters)' is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity but does not waste space.

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?

Given 15 parameters, 20% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it well: no filter semantics, no clarification that 'next' appears in the response, and no note about whether limit/offset or 'next' should be preferred. It is adequate for a bare list call and inadequate for a parameterized, paginated query 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?

Fifteen parameters with only 20% schema description coverage, and the description names none of them. It never explains status values, orderby syntax, the four date-range pairs (endDate/startDate/scheduleMoveOutDate/lastModifiedDateTime with Start/End semantics), or how limit/offset interact with the 'next' mechanism. That is exactly the compensation this tool needs and does not get.

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 Propertyware leases') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling propertyware_get_lease by being the paged collection endpoint. An agent can pick the right tool without opening the schema.

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 clear when/what-next guidance for pagination ('use next (preserves filters) for the following call'), which is a real usage rule. It does not contrast with propertyware_get_lease or any other sibling, and says nothing about when to filter versus fetch-then-filter, so the guidance is partial.

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