get_lease_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Read' implies non-destructive behavior. It mentions the filtering and context for query results, but lacks details on output format or behavior when query is null. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 consists of two short sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states the action, second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the main purpose, usage scenarios, and basic behavior. It could mention what happens when query is null (returns whole text) or define 'context' more precisely, but overall it 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'query' parameter filters lines and returns them with context, adding meaningful information beyond the schema's type definition. It could be more precise about the query syntax.

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 'Read the raw lease text', a specific verb+resource. It also specifies optional query filtering and provides concrete use cases (pet rules, subletting, maintenance, verification). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all financial/accounting related.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to answer questions not covered by structured terms or to verify extracted values. It gives context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, though the sibling tools are clearly different.

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