Buildium Get Lease

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that tenants and rent terms are included, which gives some expectation of the response content. It does not mention any rate limits, auth prerequisites, or pagination, but for a read-only single-resource fetch this is acceptable given the annotations cover the main behavioral traits.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the resource, the operation, and the key included content. No wasted words, and the most important information (get by ID) is front-loaded. It is appropriately minimal for a simple CRUD operation.

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 the tool is a simple get-by-ID and an output schema exists (defining the return shape), the description covers the primary action and response scope. However, the lack of any explanation for the 'fields' parameter is a notable gap, as an agent cannot know how to narrow the response. Additionally, no mention of error handling or edge cases, though these are often implicit in read-only get operations. Overall, functional but incomplete around the optional parameter.

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 has two parameters: lease_id (required integer) and fields (optional array of strings or null). The description does not explain the 'fields' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the burden is on the description. 'lease_id' is self-explanatory from its name, but 'fields' – which likely filters which fields to return – is completely undocumented. This leaves the agent guessing about a non-required but potentially useful parameter.

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 it gets a single lease by ID and mentions the included details (tenants, rent terms). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like buildium_list_leases (plural, no ID) and buildium_get_rental (different resource).

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 tool's purpose is straightforward for a get-by-ID operation, and the description implies usage when you need a specific lease's details. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, such as when you need transaction history (buildium_list_lease_transactions) or a roster (buildium_lease_roster). Absence of explicit exclusions leaves some ambiguity.

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