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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the returned artifact includes a version and sha256 for integrity verification plus a never-sell guarantee, and it imposes an ordering constraint relative to the rent action.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads what is returned before the usage condition. It is slightly overloaded with a semicolon clause, but every element (return payload, integrity fields, timing) earns its place.

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 so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the key returned fields and the precondition for calling. For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description only says 'one name and term,' which adds no syntax or default behavior, and its use of 'name' for the 'host' parameter is a mild terminology drift.

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 ('Returns the exact lease text for one name and term') and enumerates what comes back (version, sha256, never-sell guarantee). The resource is distinct enough from get_name, get_rent_status, and start_rent that an agent can route correctly 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 an explicit trigger condition: 'call it before the human rents, so they read what they sign.' That is a clear when-to-use, but it names no alternative tool or exclusion (e.g., what to call after renting), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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