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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: output is labelled per Location and unreachable Locations are reported as skipped, plus the defaulting rule when location is blank. It does not discuss pagination, cost, or auth, but for a read-only report tool this is meaningful added context.

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 purpose line, then a compact output inventory, then usage questions, then the parameter note — a sensible order with little waste. The bolded question list and the location paragraph are somewhat dense but each carries real routing value.

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 the description still summarizes the return shape, so return-value understanding is solid. However, with five parameters and 0% schema coverage, leaving top_n, portfolio, as_of_date, and property_ids undocumented makes the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 parameter burden, yet it only explains `location` (ID, comma list, 'all', blank default, per-Location scoping). The four other parameters — top_n, portfolio, as_of_date, property_ids — are never mentioned; top_n is only obliquely implied by 'top-N oldest stuck units', and the date/property/portfolio semantics are left entirely to inference from bare titles.

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 description names a specific resource and state ('Units currently in turnover') plus the underlying report (719), then enumerates the exact output shape: per-property count with average/oldest age, stage breakdown, and top-N oldest stuck units. It also lists the concrete questions it answers, which lets an agent match a user's phrasing to this tool without consulting siblings like analyze_move_ins_outs or analyze_vacancy.

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 'Answers: ...' clause gives clear situational triggers (counting in-flight turnovers, finding the oldest stuck unit, spotting units with a next move-in), and the location paragraph explains when to pass a Location versus defaulting. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is context-rich but not fully routing.

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