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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so an agent knows this is a safe, closed-world computation. The description adds the legal framing (LTB/RTB guidelines) but omits meaningful behavioral facts such as which years are supported, what happens for unsupported inputs, and that only three provinces are valid — the schema's pointer to 'this tool's supported years' hints at a constraint the description never states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the computation, the three supported jurisdictions and the returned value with no filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the title 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return value (maximum allowable increase and resulting new rent), which is what an agent needs. The one real gap is the unsupported-year/unsupported-province behavior, but for a stateless three-parameter calculator the definition is otherwise sufficient.

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 67%: currentRent and year carry descriptions, while province is an undocumented enum. The description compensates partially by expanding the enum values into their regulators (Ontario LTB, BC RTB, Manitoba RTB), but it adds no unit, format or range detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 fits.

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?

States a specific verb (calculate) and resource (maximum allowable annual rent increase) plus the scope (three named provinces, a given year) and the secondary output (resulting new rent). This clearly separates it from the mortgage, tax and cap-rate siblings, which compute entirely different quantities.

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 domain context makes the intended use obvious, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent can infer it is the rent-guideline calculator, but nothing tells it what to do if the province or year falls outside the supported set.

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