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

No annotations provided, so description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the scoring output (1-10) and framework, but does not disclose what happens with invalid inputs, whether the deal must exist, or any side effects. Limited insight into tool behavior.

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?

Single sentence is efficient but may be too terse. It captures core purpose but misses opportunity to add valuable context without bloating. Adequate but not optimally informative.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the NDI framework, the output format, or how parameters influence scoring. Users lack context to use the tool effectively.

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 0% (no property descriptions). The tool description does not explain any parameters beyond the overall purpose. Users must infer that address, state, property type, asking price, etc., are required inputs, but no guidance on their role or format.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scores a commercial real estate deal using a specific framework (NDI's 5-dimension) and outputs a 1-10 rating. Distinguishes from siblings like search_deals (which finds deals) and get_market_benchmarks (which provides benchmarks).

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?

Description implies when to use: when a deal scoring is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but no guidance on selection.

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