rental_add_lease

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add a new lease agreement' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate leaseId, error conditions, or response format. For a 9-parameter mutation tool, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 maximally concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential action and resource without any wasted words. Every element ('Add', 'new', 'lease agreement') contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters (7 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It identifies the core operation but provides no parameter guidance, behavioral context, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, meaning none of the 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides zero information about any parameters—not explaining what leaseId, unitId, tenantId represent, date formats, monetary units, or the meaning of escalation fields. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Add a new lease agreement' clearly states the action (add) and resource (lease agreement), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'rental_add_tenant' or 'rental_add_property' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools exist (e.g., rental_add_tenant, rental_add_property), there's no indication of relationships, prerequisites, or contextual triggers for choosing this specific lease-adding function over other rental operations.

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