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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an auth requirement (partner API token), strict ownership scoping, and that metrics are windowed at 7 and 30 days.

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 payload/scope statement first, then the access constraint. No filler, no restating of the title, and every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, auth, and return fields adequately. Only minor gaps remain, such as result count limits or ordering of the returned homes.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call scoped implicitly to the authenticated partner, and no parameter semantics are needed.

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 (lists) and resource (this partner's own homes), plus the exact fields returned (status, verified flag, view/save/matched-hunt/accepted-hunt counts). The scoping clause 'other partners' homes are never included' separates it from search_rentals and get_listing, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 prerequisite 'Requires a partner API token' is a useful usage condition, and the read-only scope is implied. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over listing_performance, my_leads, or search_rentals, and no exclusions beyond the ownership scope.

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