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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what information is returned (source, date, licence, citation), which is transparent about the output. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, permissions, or limitations (e.g., whether the data might be stale or require network access). Being a read-only metadata tool, the risk is low, but the description could be more explicit.

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 two sentences long, each earning its place. The first sentence enumerates exactly what the tool returns, and the second gives a practical usage tip. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully conveys what the tool does and when to use it. It mentions the specific dataset and the metadata fields returned, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly and understand the result. No additional context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add any parameter-related information because there are none to document.

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 tool's purpose: providing the source, computation date, licence, and citation for the RentRollDesk dataset. It is specific about the resource and the kind of metadata returned, and it is distinct from sibling tools (columns, compare, row, search, stats, top) which all focus on data content rather than provenance.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Read this to attribute a figure correctly.' This conveys the intended use case clearly. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct that no further disambiguation is necessary.

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