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

The description reveals a key behavior: the tool returns a haveny.co article URL in its first line and instructs agents to include it as a clickable markdown link. This adds valuable context beyond annotations (which already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true).

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 description is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: purpose first, then usage, then a critical behavioral note. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what to expect: a URL plus the returned rights and next steps. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and output format.

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?

The single parameter 'situation' is well-described in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds example values but does not significantly enhance semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves homeowner rights, statutes, and next steps for California HOA situations. It provides specific usage examples ('records request, election, special assessment, rule enforcement, unresponsive management') and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the homeowner side.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user describes any HOA dispute or concern from the homeowner side' and lists example situations. It doesn't exclude cases where sibling tools might be better, but the broad scope is implied.

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