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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the figures are estimates ("as in the app") and it requires the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app, which is an auth prerequisite the annotations do not convey.

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 metrics, but the metric list is stated twice in near-identical form ("price, rental income, cash flow, cap rate and cash on cash return... Mashmeter and expenses" then again), which is padding rather than information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does list the returned metrics, plus an estimate caveat and an auth requirement; annotations cover the safety profile. It is close to complete, only missing any note on the shape/units of the returned figures.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the strategy enum and its default. The description only restates that strategy selects the per-strategy figures, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (get the Property Analytics numbers for one property) and enumerates the exact metrics returned, so an agent knows what it produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like mashvisor_get_property_comps or mashvisor_analyze_unlisted_property, so the agent must infer which of these property-data tools to pick.

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 only usage-like statement is "Set strategy to get one of them," which is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over mashvisor_get_property_comps, mashvisor_analyze_unlisted_property, or the download/export siblings.

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