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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: every row carries provenance fields, and unauthenticated usage returns a limited free sample but still reports the true total. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent set expectations and avoid surprising the user.

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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then adds provenance, usage context, and authentication behavior in a logical, compact order. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite its brevity, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what returned rows contain, and a critical access limitation. With a full input schema, annotations, and an output schema present, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds domain-level context about price/bedroom/neighborhood but does not need to add per-parameter detail. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search PutRoots' San Francisco rental index.' It also clarifies the distinctive provenance aspects (source, last-seen date, whether requirements were stated), which separates it from generic search tools. The purpose is immediately understandable and sufficiently specific.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'when someone asks what's available in SF at a price / bedroom count / neighborhood,' which provides a clear trigger condition. It does not enumerate exclusions or explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools are not close enough to require detailed differentiation.

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