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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the anti-enumeration design: the same generic acknowledgement is always returned and nothing about tenancy existence, identity, codes or links leaks. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling. It stops short of stating error behavior for invalid/unregistered emails or any rate limiting, which for an open-world, non-read-only tool would be useful.

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: the action and its target come first, the privacy/return guarantee second. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the tool's key risk surface (indistinguishable responses, no data leakage). The remaining gap is input-side: with 0% schema coverage, the required confirmation flag and idempotency key are left unexplained.

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 0% and four parameters exist, only one of which ('email') is indirectly implied by 'the customer's own address'. Nothing explains the purpose or expected value of 'confirmed', 'idempotencyKey', or 'locale', so the agent gets no help on three of four required-or-optional inputs.

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 and resource: request the existing resident-portal access email for the customer's own address. It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from every sibling (application, booking, payment, viewing tools), none of which touch portal access recovery.

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 establishes the scope — the customer's own address only — and explicitly hands off identity verification and personal tenant actions to the private resident portal. That is a clear when-not boundary, though it names no alternative tool or precondition workflow (e.g. what a customer without an existing account should do).

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