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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds material context the annotations cannot: it requires the Featured Property package and a Cotlet API key with access to this app, and it discloses the row-per-listing output shape.

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 report's content and granularity, followed by the alternative, prerequisite, and credential requirement in a tight sequence. Every sentence adds information; none is redundant with the title or schema.

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 present, the description does explain the return shape ('one row per Featured listing') and covers auth and availability prerequisites. For a two-optional-date read tool this is nearly complete, though pagination or size limits are not mentioned.

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%, and both 'from'/'to' are already documented in the schema with their defaults, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only implies a date-range scope without adding syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Returns the Featured Property report of ZooplaPro') plus granularity ('one row per Featured listing'), which tells an agent exactly what shape of data to expect. It also names the differing sibling, get_listing_performance, so the two can be told apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to get_listing_performance 'for the full report of a single property' and notes the package prerequisite. The routing is clear but it never distinguishes this report from get_performance_overview, leaving one nearby alternative unaddressed.

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