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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it can actively advise against a house, it degrades to a vocabulary dump when needs are omitted, and the language flag affects only the report while every other field stays English.

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 purpose and trigger are front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on of cryptic grouping labels ("For a house:", "Against:", "Deciding the size:", "Asking for something planned:") that are hard to parse. The vocabulary list is largely necessary given zero enums, but the phrasing around it is not tight.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and mutability is covered by annotations. The description still fills the important gaps: the omitted-needs behavior, the language scope, and the needs vocabulary. Little that an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully exceeds it by enumerating the actual needs vocabulary (with per-need grouping) that the schema only refers to abstractly and does not constrain with enums. It also clarifies data_gb's purpose and the narrow scope of language.

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 states a concrete outcome set: whether a house fits, which size, monthly cost, and a Markdown report, plus that it argues against a house when that is wrong. That is a specific verb+resource+deliverable, though it never names or contrasts the siblings (request_house, pricing, house_status) that an agent might otherwise pick.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ("Call this once you know what the person you act for needs") and an explicit degenerate case ("Called without needs, it returns the vocabulary with a sentence per need"). It does not, however, state when another tool is preferable, so routing still requires inference.

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