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

Annotations already convey read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by specifying that this is a deterministic rule engine and that the score is explainable, which helps set expectations about consistency and interpretability.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with the key behavioral qualifiers, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the 100% parameter schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance among related rental tools, but that is more a usage-guideline issue than a completeness issue.

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 parameters are already well-documented individually. The description adds the useful grouping 'red-flag signals,' but it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 states the tool computes an explainable rental-fraud risk score from listing red-flag signals, which is a specific resource and function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rental_verdict by emphasizing 'risk score' rather than a verdict, though it stops short of naming them explicitly.

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 intended context is implied: use this when you have rental listing signals and need a fraud risk score. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools (e.g., rental_verdict, rent_deposit_guard) should be chosen instead.

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