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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it checks the address against existing building records, returns different links depending on permit match, requires no account, creates nothing, and defers actual creation until the user completes sign-in, photos, and identity verification. This is consistent with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

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 description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, trigger conditions, permit-handling behavior, deferred creation, and parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description explains the workflow, conditional outputs, and user-identity requirements well. It could better position this tool relative to draft_listing)Skip, but the core context an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 67%, so the description is not solely responsible for parameter clarity. It adds useful general guidance ('Pass whatever is already known and leave the rest out; a link with only an address is still useful') and explicitly says not to ask for a permit number. However, it does little to clarify the undocumented parameters such as bedrooms, bathrooms, and square_feet.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Begin listing an ADU... for rent') and the target resource (an ADU on A-du), with helpful synonyms for the property type. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling draft_listing tool, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 description gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this whenever a person mentions they have a unit they want to rent out, are thinking about renting out, have vacant, or whose tenant is leaving.' It provides clear context but does not mention exclusions or name alternative tools when this tool should not be used.

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