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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the report's actual content shape (per-property count, average/oldest age, stage breakdown, top-N stuck units), which annotations do not convey.

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 core scope, then a compact inventory of report contents and example questions. No filler, though the trailing quoted-question list is slightly verbose relative to the info it adds.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. However, with four entirely undocumented parameters and no guidance on filtering scope, an agent lacks enough to call it precisely.

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 all four parameters (top_n, portfolio, as_of_date, property_ids) carry only titles and defaults. The description hints at top_n via 'top-N oldest stuck units' but says nothing about portfolio, as_of_date, or property_ids, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 and scope ('Units currently in turnover') and pins it to a concrete artifact (Make Ready Summary, report 719), then enumerates the report's contents. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like analyze_move_ins_outs or run_report.

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 quoted example questions ('how many turnovers in flight', 'what's the oldest stuck unit', 'which turnovers already have a next move-in') imply when the tool fits, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing among the many analyze_*/run_report siblings.

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