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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the report's data coverage, but much of that overlaps with the output schema and it does not mention pagination, freshness, or permission details.

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?

One front-loaded sentence leads with what the report covers, then closes with the required input provenance. It is dense but has no filler or redundant explanation.

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 one-parameter read-only report with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, data scope, and input source. It could better distinguish the sibling building_report, but nothing critical for calling the tool 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%, and the schema's landlord field already explains the id or contact-link source. The description repeats that meaning without adding format, validation, or resolution behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource, a NYC landlord or management company, and enumerates the report's subject matter: tenant ratings, reviews, violations, evictions, court cases, buildings, and rentals. It does not explicitly contrast itself with building_report, but the landlord-level scope is clear from the opening phrase.

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 identifies valid input sources, a landlord id from building_report or an openigloo.com/contact link, which helps the agent invoke it. However, it does not state when to choose landlord_report over building_report or other apartment tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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