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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does so by disclosing the fixed cardinality (exactly three houses, so no pagination or filtering concerns) and the returned fields, though the field list partly duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and result set, followed by return fields and the next-step pointer, with no wasted sentences. Minor deduction for decorative detail ('4 stars, since 1739', 'private spa suites, open all year') that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns in outline, and the correct next call. The only omission is the effect of the language parameter on returned text and links, which the schema already documents.

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 single 'language' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage with enum values and default), so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions that output text and URLs vary by language, adding nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies under high coverage.

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 (Lists) and resource (the three houses), then enumerates them by name so the agent knows the exact, bounded result set. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_rooms, which is named as the follow-up.

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?

Provides explicit workflow sequencing: call this first to get house ids, then 'Use list_rooms with the house id next.' It does not state exclusions or a when-not condition, but since the tool has no filters and returns a fixed set, there is little alternative-selection ambiguity to resolve.

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