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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lowered. The description still earns credit for disclosing the negative case — a home owned by someone else is reported as 'not in your inventory' rather than erroring, which tells the agent how to interpret a miss.

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 with the return payload front-loaded and the edge-case behavior trailing. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema text.

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 enumerates the returned fields and covers the ownership-miss case, which is enough for an agent to call and interpret it. Minor gap: '7- and 30-day counts' never says counts of what (views, leads, inquiries), leaving one term slightly ambiguous.

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 listing_id is already documented as 'Id of one of this partner's homes'. The description adds meaning beyond that by defining the ownership boundary and what happens when the id falls outside it, which is real semantic value for the single parameter.

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 plus the exact payload (status, verified flag, 7- and 30-day counts) for a single owned home, which separates it from generic listing-detail siblings like get_listing. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for one home this partner owns' implies the applicable scope, and search/list tools are implicitly excluded since only one listing_id is accepted. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_listing or my_listings, and no stated prerequisites.

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