generate_lease

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the tool never auto-signs and always returns a draft, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects or storage, but the main safety-relevant behavior is transparently disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and a clear safety qualifier. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of the tool's function and its human-in-the-loop aspect. It lacks details on auth token usage or error behavior, but the core purpose and immediate outcome are sufficiently clear.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'verified party' and 'property metadata' corresponding to parties_verified_id and property_id, but it does not explain oauth_token, duration format, or rent_value semantics beyond the schema type. Partial compensation only.

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 the tool drafts a standardized rental contract using verified party and property metadata. The verb 'draft' and resource 'rental contract' are specific, and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like verify_parties and get_rent_status.

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 indicates the tool consumes verified party and property metadata, implying it should be used after verification. It also clarifies that it never auto-signs, leaving room for human review, which is a workflow guideline. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.

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