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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false. The description adds useful context beyond these by explaining the 'date-free' scope, the 'published on ATA' condition, and explicitly stating it 'does not create an order.' This goes beyond simply restating the annotations.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the primary function and scope; the second clarifies return details and non-mutation. Every phrase contributes to understanding without repetition.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (read-only details and ATA purchase links) and the key condition (published on ATA). It could mention pagination or sorting, but these are not critical for selection. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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?

Input schema coverage is 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds domain context like 'date-free' and 'for a known property,' which informally ties to parameters, but it does not explain the propertyToken parameter or any parameter-specific behavior beyond what is in the schema. The description is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 identifies the verb 'List' and specific resources (date-free published events, services, etc.) for a known property, with scope indicated by 'for a known property' and non-mutating behavior stated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_property_catalog, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a known property) and mentions a condition (when the property is published on ATA), but it does not reference any alternative tools or exclusionary criteria. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or naming of siblings, so the guidance is clear but incomplete.

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