lease_qa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns an answer grounded in the lease, or states when the lease does not address the question. It also mentions the input should be one neutral, precise question, and that the lease is pre-scoped. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't fully explain all edge cases (e.g., handling of ambiguous questions).

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action. It includes only essential information: what to ask, the scoping context, and the expected response behavior. No redundant phrasing or irrelevant details.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key contextual details: the lease is already scoped for the email, the question must be neutral and precise, and the answer is grounded in the lease with a fallback if not addressed. Since an output schema exists, return-value details aren't required. It could be more complete with a brief example, but it's sufficient for use.

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 single required parameter is named 'question' and has no schema description. The tool description adds the guidance that the question should be neutral and precise, which is helpful, but it doesn't give examples or specify the expected format/length. This partially compensates for the schema coverage of 0%, but leaves room for more detail.

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 that the tool asks one neutral, precise question about the tenant's lease, and explicitly notes the scope ('already scoped for this email'). It uses a specific verb ('ask') and resource ('lease') and describes the outcome, so the purpose is unambiguous even without sibling tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need to ask a single question about the lease for this email. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives (none are listed), but the scope qualifier and the requirement for a neutral, precise question serve as usage guidance.

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