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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), the description discloses the cost (5 credits), the MLS-comparable data source, and — most valuably — the exact expense assumptions (8% management, 5% maintenance, 5% vacancy, insurance, tax) plus the explicit note that mortgage cost is excluded and these are pre-debt-service NOI figures. That is precisely the kind of caveat an agent needs to avoid misreporting results.

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?

Structured with front-loaded headings (returns, when to use, pricing, FAQ), so an agent can scan the essential contract first. Each section is short and the FAQ earns its place by correcting a likely misinterpretation of NOI. No filler prose.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers what comes back, when to call it, cost, and key assumptions. The remaining gap is address input expectations, which matters because sibling tools like auto_complete_address suggest address normalization is a real concern in this API.

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?

There is only one parameter (property_address) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load — yet it says nothing about address format, granularity, or whether a full street address with ZIP is required. The only hint is the 'same micro-market' comparables statement and the example string in the schema. With one parameter and an example present, this is adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 'What it returns' section names a specific resource (projected long-term rental income) and enumerates exactly which metrics come back: monthly rent band, vacancy assumption, GOI, NOI after expense ratios, and cap rate vs. the AVM. It also states the data source (MLS-comparable rentals in the same micro-market). Only explicit sibling routing is missing, but the name and content clearly separate it from get_short_term_rental and get_flip_return.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use it' section gives two concrete scenarios: underwriting buy-and-hold rental candidates and computing cap rates across a watchlist. It does not state when NOT to use it or name the sibling (e.g., get_short_term_rental for STR underwriting), so the routing context is clear but not complete.

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