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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the tool's non-behaviors (does not search listings, does not retrieve reports) and its role as a summarizer of scope/limitations, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 composed of three sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add usage guidance and limitations. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary but every sentence provides distinct value; no redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to describe return values. It covers the tool's scope, limitations, and usage context thoroughly. It clearly states what the tool does and doesn't do, making it complete for an overview tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately avoids parameter details since none exist.

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 tool's purpose: to explain the dataset scope, coverage, read-only nature, and utility. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it does not search listings or retrieve archival reports, which differentiates it from search_hns_properties and other tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use conditions (e.g., 'when the user asks what HOUSE N STARS covers...') and when-not-to-use exclusions ('does not search individual listings', 'does not retrieve archival HNS research reports'). It also hints at future alternatives, giving clear routing guidance.

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