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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond those annotations, including the return fields (grade, review count, record counts) and the null grade behavior for unreviewed properties.

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 description is two sentences with no redundancy: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by filtering detail and return-value specifics. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simple tool shape, rich safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, filter, and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to make a correct call, though it could add more explicit college_id context or limit semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains query as street/house number text and implies college_id via 'near a campus', but it does not explicitly define college_id or address the limit parameter, leaving a partial semantic 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List rental addresses near a campus') and the resource ('rental addresses'), with a specific filtering mechanism ('street or house number text'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_colleges and search_owners, which target different entities.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when listing rental addresses near a campus and filtering by text. However, it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like get_property or state when not to use it, leaving the routing decision somewhat implicit.

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