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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond annotations: permission scoping ('properties your user can see'), pagination mechanics, and an auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app').

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 and useful, but the first two sentences are redundant: 'with address and unit count' is restated as 'with address and number of units.' The duplication costs space without adding 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, which it does (address and unit count, permission-scoped list). It also covers pagination and auth. It could mention what happens without the required API key access, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 limit, cursor, and search are already documented. The description reinforces cursor semantics ('Pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource ('List properties in your Rent Manager database, with address and unit count') and names the specific Rent Manager app, which scopes it against the many other *list_properties siblings across apps. It does not explicitly contrast with rent-manager_list_tenants or similar in-app list tools, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Gives concrete downstream usage: 'Use the property_id of each item in list_tenants, list_service_issues and create_service_issue,' and explains pagination via 'Pass next_cursor back as cursor.' It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context is clear.

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