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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: it is token-scoped, a RESO list endpoint on the normal api base, and the newly created listing is 'typically the newest entry'. It stops short of pagination or rate-limit detail, but with annotations carrying the safety burden a 4 is warranted.

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-loads the stage and endpoint, then uses two tight bullets for the main uses. The workflow routing detail earns its place, though the markdown-heavy formatting and stage framing are slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description fully covers endpoint, auth scoping, and routing to sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call and place this tool correctly is missing.

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 100% with a single access_token parameter fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'token-scoped' note aligns with but does not extend the schema's own token 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('the signed-in user's properties (GET /properties)') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the exact downstream tools it feeds (beycome_questionnaire_link, beycome_messages, beycome_showings, beycome_offers). An agent can tell what this does and where it sits in the workflow without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly enumerates two use cases: post-submit-property recovery and as the entry point for a returning user referencing 'my listing' without an id. It even maps resulting status to the correct next tool, giving concrete when-to-use and branching logic.

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