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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the result is 'indicative' only, cannot be treated as authoritative, and must be confirmed with ICP / GDRFA Dubai. It also previews the response shape ('shortfall and conditions'), which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the rule and threshold come first, followed by the return content and the confirmation caveat. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, single-required-parameter checker with no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining what comes back ('shortfall and conditions'). What is missing is how the two optional boolean flags affect the verdict and how this tool relates to its near-identically-named sibling, both of which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of propertyValueAed by stating the AED 2 million threshold, but it says nothing about how 'offPlan' or 'mortgaged' alter the outcome — whether off-plan purchases are excluded or mortgaged ones require equity — which is the only semantic value the description could have added here.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Indicative check against the UAE 10-year Golden Visa real-estate route') and pins the exact rule being tested (AED 2 million minimum property value), so the agent knows precisely what the tool computes. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling 'check_golden_visa_eligibility', whose name is nearly identical — a real ambiguity that the description leaves unresolved.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this applies when a user asks whether a property purchase qualifies for a Golden Visa. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and crucially no routing guidance versus the near-duplicate sibling check_golden_visa_eligibility or versus adjacent tools like calculate_dld_buying_costs. The 'confirm with ICP / GDRFA Dubai' line usefully signals this is a first-pass indicator, not a determination.

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