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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only behavior. The description adds that it persists the full user-scoped analysis and returns a summary, which gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also includes a safety warning about not sending sensitive data, which is relevant for a tool that processes user-provided content. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a warning. It is succinct, with no redundant information, and each sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (4 params, non-read-only, output schema). The description covers the main function, side effect (persist), and output. It mentions the Luxembourg context. It does not explain what constitutes a risk summary or edge cases, but given the output schema exists, this is adequate.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for text and pdfBase64 (including sensitive data warnings). The description mentions 'lease PDF or raw text' linking to these params but does not clarify filename or language semantics. With 50% schema coverage, the description adds marginal value but does not fully compensate for undocumented parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: analyzing a Luxembourg residential lease from a PDF or raw text, persisting the analysis, and returning a compact risk summary. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are mostly read/search operations) by being the only lease-analysis tool.

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 implies when to use: when a caller provides a lease document to analyze. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear from the purpose. It would benefit from explicit 'use when...' guidance, but the intent is understandable.

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