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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what the catalogue returns, whether it is static reference data versus live results, or any rate/size characteristics. For a tool with no output schema, it leaves the behavior of the call undisclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though at the cost of being under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey the return shape (what a "check" or "source" entry looks like) and any pagination or filtering limits — it conveys neither. Against the rich sibling set and a nested `query` object, one sentence is not enough for an agent to call this confidently.

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 100% for the single optional `query` object, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no meaning about what query keys are meaningful or what filtering the catalogue supports. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

It gives a verb ("List") and a resource ("Rent Pass checks and sources"), so the general intent is discernible. However, "checks and sources" is ambiguous — it could be read as listing definitions or listing results — and the description never distinguishes this tool from the sibling rent_check, which likely performs the actual check. Purpose is implied rather than pinned down.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus rent_check or any other catalogue/check pair. The agent must infer that "catalogue" means discovery/enumeration and rent_check means execution, which is never stated.

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