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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one genuine addition is the credential requirement (HousingFeed key), which the annotations do not convey; return format and pagination are left unaddressed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler or redundancy. It leads with the credential prerequisite rather than the tool's purpose, which is mildly backward for selection scanning, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a parameter-light read tool with no output schema, the description plus rich param docs cover what an agent needs. The auth requirement is called out, and no critical invocation detail appears 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, since, change, offset) are already documented with defaults, bounds and enum values. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 outcome: listings added, changed or removed in the latest weekly feed update. The 'weekly update' framing implicitly separates it from search_my_feed's arbitrary-query behavior, though it never names that sibling outright.

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 prerequisite ('Requires a HousingFeed key') is stated, which is real guidance, and the 'since' parameter text points at feed_status's changes_from for the missed-week case. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_my_feed or feed_status.

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