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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the comparison depends on the renter's own stored qualifications, each line includes provenance and fetch time, and the tool intentionally returns no overall verdict. This gives an agent a clear model of what the tool does and does not decide.

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 information-dense sentences: scope, output detail, provenance, account requirement, and a design caveat. There is no repetition or filler, and the most important usage boundary appears early.

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?

Given a single required parameter and an output schema already present, the description supplies all essential context: listing source, required user scope, compared dimensions, provenance of each line, and the explicit lack of a verdict. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 only parameter, listing_url, is fully documented in the schema with 'exactly as returned by search_listings,' and the description reinforces that source. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't add new parameter syntax or format details.

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 clearly states the resource scope ('one listing URL from search_listings') and the exact output: landlord requirements, renter-filled qualifications, and the gap per line, with examples of dimensions. It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like search_listings or move_plan by focusing on requirement comparison rather than listing search or move management.

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 gives clear context: use it for a single listing obtained from search_listings, and it requires the renter's own PutRoots account. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the input source and account prerequisite provide strong situational guidance.

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