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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the default trailing 30-day window, per-Location output labeling, and the handling of unreachable Locations as skipped.

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 and the paragraph is generally efficient, with no major repetition. The formatting is slightly awkward and the long `location` explanation dominates while other parameters are omitted, but the overall structure is readable.

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?

The tool has an output schema and rich annotations, reducing the burden to explain return values and safety. However, with six parameters at 0% schema description coverage and only `location` documented in the description, the definition is not complete enough to fully guide parameter usage.

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 the burden for six parameters. It thoroughly explains only `location`; `top_n`, `start_date`, `end_date`, `portfolio`, and `property_ids` receive no semantic explanation, including no date formats or ID-format guidance.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb/resource: a move-in/move-out turnover summary with per-property move-in, move-out, and net counts. It also distinguishes itself from the closely related move_ins_outs listing tool by explaining that it adds aggregates and rankings. An agent can identify the tool's scope 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 explicitly positions the tool as an analytics complement to move_ins_outs and says it adds aggregates and rankings, which gives a clear use case versus the listing alternative. However, it does not give explicit when-not guidance or contrast against other analyze_* tools, so it falls short of the strongest usage guidance.

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