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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the account linking/API key requirement and the own-listings-only auth boundary, which an agent must know before invoking.

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 core purpose, then a scannable bulleted breakdown of issue definitions, then scope and prerequisites. Every element earns its place; the multi-line issue definitions are long but are precisely the information that makes the tool callable.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, issue semantics, scope defaults, and auth prerequisites. It is essentially complete for a read-only diagnostic tool; only the absence of explicit alternative-routing keeps it out of the top tier.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines what each 'issue' enum value actually means (90 days online, no enquiry in 60 days, fewer than 5 photos, etc.) and spells out the 'status' semantics. Only 'limit' goes unexplained, but its default and bounds are already in the schema.

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 (checks the calling agency's own listings and lists the problematic ones), and enumerates the exact issues detected. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like my_listings or search_properties, which cover general listing retrieval rather than diagnostic auditing.

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 default scope (online listings) and what the 'draft' and 'all' status values select, plus the prerequisite of a linked PropertyList account and the own-listings-only restriction. It does not name a sibling tool as an alternative when this diagnosis is not the right call, so it falls short of the explicit when-not guidance a 5 requires.

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