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 context, and it does: output is labelled per Location, unreachable Locations are reported as skipped, and a blank location resolves to all Locations when the connection has several or the sole Location otherwise. That is genuine behavioral detail an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 purpose leads, followed by the location semantics, with no filler sentences. The location paragraph is a little dense but every clause carries information; the only waste is the parenthetical ``see list_locations`` plus the ellipsis-style ID enumeration.

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 needn't be spelled out, and the Location resolution rules are adequately covered for a read-only tool. The gaps are the undocumented `shortname` and `property_id` parameters and the absence of any sibling differentiation, which matters in a tool list crowded with adjacent occupancy and availability analytics.

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 must carry all three parameters. It explains `location` thoroughly, including accepted forms (single ID, comma-separated list, "all") and the blank default, but `shortname` and `property_id` are never mentioned at all, leaving two thirds of the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 line names a specific resource and scope: per-unit marketing/occupancy status for a property. That is far more informative than the title alone, though it never states what the status consists of (occupancy flag, marketing channel, days-on-market) or how it differs from nearby analytics tools such as analyze_availability 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?

There is real operational guidance about Location scoping, including the useful rule that IDs belong to a single Location so that Location must be passed when filtering by one. However, nothing says when to choose this tool over siblings like analyze_occupancy_trend, analyze_vacancy, or get_marketing_udfs, so the usage is only implied by the name and the location note.

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