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

Annotations already cover read/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context: the API excludes tenants with a balance but no current unit, so results may differ from the RM UI by 1-2 tenants / $50-200. This is a substantive data-completeness caveat beyond what annotations provide, though nothing is said about pagination or rate limits.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by sibling differentiation, example questions, and the footer caveat. Efficient overall, though the trailing footer paragraph could be tightened.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers purpose, sibling routing, and a key data caveat. The main gap is parameter documentation, which the low schema coverage leaves unaddressed.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load, but it only hints at top_n via the phrase 'top 10' and the charge-type dimension. portfolio, as_of_date, and property_ids remain entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 resource and scope ('Delinquency by tenant + charge type') and immediately differentiates itself from the closest sibling by naming analyze_aged_receivables and contrasting the slice (charge category vs aging bucket). An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

It names the alternative (analyze_aged_receivables) and explains the distinction, plus lists concrete questions it answers ('who's behind on rent vs utilities', 'top 10 delinquent tenants'). That is clear contextual routing, though there is no explicit when-not/exclusion guidance to reach a 5.

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