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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are ordered newest first, pages hold up to 100 items and are traversed via next_cursor, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required. It stops short of describing rate limits or what happens on an expired cursor.

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 most important information (scope, returned fields, ordering, pagination, auth) is front-loaded, and each sentence carries weight. It is slightly dense with the quality-score aside interrupting the flow, but there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing what is returned (status, agent, price, quality score, upgrade) and adds ordering, pagination, and auth requirements. It is essentially complete for invoking a read-only paginated list tool; only edge-case behavior (cursor expiry, empty results) is unaddressed.

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 schema already documents all six parameters and their enums/defaults. The description adds meaning for two of them (why quality score matters and how next_cursor maps to cursor), but most parameters are left entirely to the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List listings') scoped to the user's agency ('Listings in your agency'), and enumerates the returned fields (status, agent, price, quality score, active upgrade). This clearly distinguishes it from property-finder_get_listing and the create/update/publish siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'list my agency's listings' framing and the pagination instructions, but it never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives such as get_listing for a single record or list_agents for the agent_id source. No exclusions or prerequisites for choosing between listing tools are given.

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