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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so irreversibility is partly covered; the description reinforces 'This cannot be undone' and adds genuinely new behavior: the pin becomes a comp and stays public on a public map with the closing price. It stops short of describing the return payload or permission requirements beyond brokerApproved.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the irreversible side effect and the approval gate. Every sentence carries information, though the phrasing of the final clause is slightly awkward.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description explains the state change and the approval precondition well. The analytics parameters (context, llm_model, conversation_id) are fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical is 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics for brokerApproved by explaining the consequence of omitting it (returns a question rather than closing). It does not clarify date/price defaults beyond what the schema already states.

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 (record that a Listing sold/leased) and names the concrete outcome (pin becomes a comp with closing price and date). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_comp, update_comp, and update_listing.

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?

Gives a concrete gating condition: 'Without brokerApproved:true it only returns the question to ask the Broker,' which tells the agent when the call will actually close versus when it will bounce back. It does not explicitly contrast against alternatives such as update_listing or add_comp, but the primary usage condition is clear.

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