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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds the citizenship consequence. However, for a state-changing tool it says nothing about cost, requirements, what happens to an existing home on 'update', or whether repeated calls stack homes — notable gaps given idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource; the citizenship clause earns its place by adding outcome context. No 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. But prerequisites for a citizenship-granting write (registration, cost, one-home-per-user rules) are absent, leaving an agent under-informed before invoking.

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% with all six parameters documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning beyond it — e.g., it never explains the roof options (which the schema lists as a pipe-delimited string rather than an enum) or the image URL requirements.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Build or update your home') with the capital location scoped, and the parenthetical clarifies the downstream effect (citizenship). It is distinguishable from siblings like register or propose_building, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 you'd want this (to establish a home and gain citizenship) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as being registered, and no comparison to propose_building or register.

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