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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower and the description clears it: it discloses that output is labelled per Location, that unreachable Locations are reported as skipped, and that IDs are scoped to a single Location. Those are real behavioral details not present in structured fields, though return granularity/pagination is untouched.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the follow-up paragraph scopes itself to the trickiest parameter. Some reference-style detail (e.g. the repeated 'all Locations' explanation) could be trimmed, but nothing is wasted outright.

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-shape explanation is not required, and the location semantics are well covered. However, two of five parameters receive no guidance anywhere, leaving an agent unable to use portfolio or property_ids without guessing.

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 must carry all parameter meaning, and it only fully explains `location` (ID, comma list, "all", blank default). `city` and `state` are merely named as filters with no format, while `portfolio` and `property_ids` are never mentioned at all.

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 opening sentence names a concrete resource ('table of park addresses') plus its filters and summary, which lets an agent distinguish it from list_properties and list_property_units. It's clear but stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings.

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 routes the agent to list_locations for Location IDs and explains what happens when location is blank, which is useful. It never states when to choose this tool over list_properties or when a state/city filter is preferable to a location filter, so selection guidance remains implied.

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