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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the auth requirement (Cotlet API key) and partial return-field info, but omits pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter, leaving a gap for a paginated list.

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 core information is front-loaded, but the first two sentences are redundant, restating the same address/unit-count contents twice ('address, type and unit count' vs 'address and number of units'). It is acceptably brief but not tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially carries return-value burden by naming returned fields, and it discloses the auth requirement. Still missing pagination semantics and any confirmation of scope (e.g., all properties vs filtered), which leaves it only minimally adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description's 'Search matches the property name or address' essentially restates the schema's own description for search and adds nothing about the cursor parameter.

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 (properties) and describes the returned content (address, type, unit count). It does not explicitly differentiate from other DoorLoop list tools like list_units or list_tenants, so it falls short of a 5, but an agent can identify the resource clearly.

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?

Provides implicit usage context by noting that the property_id is consumed by the other tools and that search matches name/address, which frames this as the lookup entry point. However, it never says when to prefer this over sibling list tools or what prerequisites exist beyond the API key.

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