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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description adds useful traits beyond that: output is labelled per Location, unreachable Locations are reported as skipped, and IDs are scoped to a single Location. It does not cover pagination, volume, or sorting of the result, so not a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the location paragraph is dense but relevant. It is efficiently sized, with the only minor cost being the fragmented formatting of the ID-scoping remark.

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, but the description leaves four of five input parameters undocumented for a five-parameter tool with zero schema coverage. An agent cannot tell what fields or property_id/shortname do, nor what only_with_data=true excludes, so the definition is not complete enough to invoke it confidently.

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 the description only explains one of five parameters (location). fields, shortname, property_id and only_with_data are left entirely undefined, including the consequential only_with_data default of true, which changes what rows appear.

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 concrete verb and resource: it builds a one-row-per-unit home-inventory table across all home UDFs. That is specific enough to place it apart from the analysis siblings, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearby get_property_udfs / get_unit_udfs, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Offers real guidance for the location argument (single ID, comma list, 'all', blank behavior) and points to list_locations, plus the rule to pass the owning Location when filtering by an ID. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_property_udfs or get_unit_udfs, so tool selection is still inferred.

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