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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the underlying report (TenantViolationsListing, report 637), that open_only=True hides closed items by default, how blank location resolves, and that an unreachable Location is reported as skipped rather than failing. The note that IDs belong to a single Location is important operational context an agent could not infer.

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?

Purpose and example queries are front-loaded before the parameter notes, so an agent can decide quickly. The location paragraph is long and uses dense backtick notation, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else needed: what the rows contain, the default filter, multi-location scoping semantics, and failure degradation. Nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does so well for location (single ID, comma list, or "all"), open_only, portfolio, and property_ids. The limit parameter is left completely unexplained in the description, which is the one remaining gap.

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 (lease/community-rule violations) with scope (open compliance items by property) and enumerates the returned fields — tenant, unit, date, code, status, stage, description. This clearly separates it from nearby siblings such as get_work_orders, get_resident_concerns, and analyze_evictions.

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 example phrasings ("what violations are open at <park>", "compliance issues", "who has an open violation") that tell the agent when to select it, plus the open_only default behavior. It does not name a competing sibling or state exclusions, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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