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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: it fans out in batches when unscoped, labels output per Location, and lists unreachable Locations as skipped. It also discloses the dependency on a named report ('looked up by name').

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose followed by the metric list, triggers, and scoping note — every sentence carries information. Slightly verbose, with the location paragraph indented into a block that reads like leftover doc formatting rather than prose.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the fan-out/skip semantics plus the report dependency are covered. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'portfolio' vs 'property_ids' scoping parameters, which an agent must guess at.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It does this thoroughly for 'location' (Location ID, comma-separated list, "all", blank default, per-Location output) but leaves 'portfolio' and 'property_ids' undocumented except for a passing 'Scope to a portfolio/park for speed', and never explains the difference between the two scoping params.

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 ('runs RM's Available Inventory Report ... and summarizes the sales pipeline') with the exact metrics produced (status counts, total/average list price, days on market, per-park breakdown). It also positions itself against siblings — 'The MHP home-sale revenue view the rent-roll tools miss' and the implied contrast with get_property_home_inventory's raw data.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ('how many park-owned homes are for sale', 'which homes are aging on the market') and a scoping recommendation ('Scope to a portfolio/park for speed'), plus a pointer to list_locations. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer get_property_home_inventory or analyze_availability instead, so the boundary is implied rather than stated.

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