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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is set. The description adds valuable context the annotations don't: it describes the response shape (id, label, role, edit permission) and its role as an entry point for estate_id. It does not discuss pagination or empty-state behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the first defines contents and return fields, the second gives the call-first directive. No filler, and the critical 'call this FIRST' instruction is placed where an agent will read it.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back — and it does, listing id, label, role, and edit permission. It omits edge cases like users with no estates and any pagination limits, but for a zero-parameter bootstrap tool this is close to complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no words on nonexistent inputs, and instead documents the output fields an agent will need to extract.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (estates) with precise scope: the signed-in user's estates, owned or shared. It also enumerates the returned fields (id, label, role, edit permission), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_estate_summary or get_assets.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it — FIRST — and why: every other estate tool needs an estate_id from here. This is a textbook sequencing guideline that routes the agent through the tool graph.

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