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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-destruction, yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: blank defaults to all Locations on multi-connection setups, output is labelled per Location, and unreachable Locations are reported as skipped rather than failing. It also warns that record IDs are Location-scoped. That is meaningful context beyond structured fields, though the return shape itself is left to the output schema.

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 core statement is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a structured block keyed to the parameter. Slightly verbose with parenthetical asides, but every line carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the Location-scoping model is well covered. However, with zero schema description coverage, the two unexplained parameters (shortname, property_id) leave a real gap for a tool an agent must construct arguments for.

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 explains 'location' thoroughly but says nothing about 'shortname' or 'property_id' — two of three parameters remain undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 first sentence names a specific verb+resource ('Property-level UDFs') and adds a discriminating scope qualifier ('filtered to the marketing allow-list') that separates it from get_property_udfs, get_tenant_udfs, and get_unit_udfs. An agent can identify 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?

The description gives real guidance on how to use the location parameter (single ID, CSV list, 'all', blank semantics), but it never states when to prefer this tool over the sibling get_property_udfs, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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