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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required Cotlet API key scoped to this app, and the fields returned. That extra auth/scoping detail earns above baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its key fields, then search behavior, then the create_lease linkage and auth note. Sentences are short and earn their place, though the return-fields sentence lightly overlaps the opening clause.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, complete parameter docs and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: matching behavior, the tenant_id hand-off, and the auth requirement. Only the absence of sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'Search matches name, email or phone' merely restates the schema's own 'match' description and it says nothing about cursor or property_id semantics, so no value is added beyond the structured fields.

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+resource ('List tenants') and enumerates the salient fields returned (email, phone, unit, current lease). It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like list_leases or create_tenant, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explains the search matching behavior and points to a downstream use ('Use tenant_id from here in create_lease'), which is helpful routing. However, it never states when to use this vs. list_leases/list_units or any prerequisite/ordering beyond the API key, so usage is only implied.

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