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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial operational context: the report source, rollup mechanics, timeout/fan-out behavior when unscoped, and the forward-looking nature of post-current months.

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 description is front-loaded with the metric definition, then report source, use cases, and operational caveats. It is somewhat long but each section is relevant for an analytical report with performance constraints.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies data source, scope caveat, and forward-looking semantics, though parameter usage remains thin.

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%, and neither portfolio nor property_ids is described in the schema. The phrase 'Scope to a portfolio/property set' only vaguely implies both parameters, leaving format, delimiter, and usage details undocumented.

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: a 12-month physical occupancy trend with monthly occupied percentage. It also names the underlying RM ReportWriter report RW 111 and clarifies the per-unit-to-monthly rollup, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_vacancy.

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?

Provides concrete usage examples such as 'occupancy trend this year', month-over-month improvement, and identifying parks that drag occupancy down. It also gives scope guidance and a timeout caveat, but does not explicitly state when to choose an alternative sibling tool.

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