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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add operational context — and it does: the tool fans out across Locations, output is labelled per Location, unreachable Locations are reported as skipped, and cross-Location ID scoping is called out. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know before interpreting results. It does not discuss ordering, pagination, or size limits for the 'all' fan-out, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first line, then the parameter guidance; no filler sentences. The location paragraph is disproportionately long relative to the unaddressed identifier parameters, but every sentence within it does convey a distinct, useful rule.

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 and annotations cover safety, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted. The description is adequate for the multi-location mechanics of a read-only lookup but leaves an agent unable to confidently construct a call from the four identifier parameters, which is the central gap for a five-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage.

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 carries the full burden — yet it explains only `location` in depth. The four other parameters (unit_id, shortname, unit_name, property_id) get no explanation at all, leaving ambiguity about which identifies the unit, what 'shortname' refers to, and whether they are mutually exclusive or ANDed. Thorough treatment of one of five parameters is not enough compensation.

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 ('Home-info UDFs for one unit') and enumerates representative fields (Year, Manufacturer, Serial/VIN, Payoff), which cleanly separates it from get_property_udfs, get_tenant_udfs and get_marketing_udfs by scope. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the 'one unit' scoping makes the class of tool unambiguous.

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 bulk of the text is a conditional usage rule for `location` (blank = all vs. single Location, and the warning that IDs belong to one Location), and it points to `list_locations` as a helper. However, it never says when to reach for this tool over the property/tenant UDF siblings, nor how the four identifier parameters relate to each other (are unit_id, shortname, unit_name, property_id alternatives or combinable?), which is the main selection decision an agent faces.

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