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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by noting that only published tenant reviews are included, quotes are limited to 3, and the returned URL anchored at #reviews contains the full review text.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output contents; the second covers prerequisites and a key output detail.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, this description is complete. It covers the purpose, scope, prerequisite workflow, and a relevant output caveat without needing to restate structured metadata.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the workflow of using search_buildings to obtain a slug, but it provides no additional meaning for the city parameter and does not resolve the schema's inconsistency where the enum lists only 'nyc' while the property description mentions multiple metros.

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 states precisely what the tool does: provides a tenant review summary for one building, including review count, average rating, 1-5 star distribution, and up to 3 recent pull quotes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_landlord_record or get_neighborhood_stats.

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?

It explicitly explains that the building slug is required and directs the caller to search_buildings first if only an address is available. This is a clear prerequisite and usage alternative, helping the agent know exactly how to invoke the tool correctly.

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