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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds 'signed' as a behavioral trait, which is useful but unexplained—an agent cannot tell whether this means a cryptographic signature or simply an authoritative verdict. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, concise sentence that places the core 'combined verdict' idea first. It earns its place, though it could include a bit more operational guidance without becoming bloated.

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 10-parameter complexity and existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not explain how the optional inputs affect the verdict or clarify the 'signed' aspect. An agent can likely call it correctly using the schema, but selection guidance and behavioral nuance are thin.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description only groups parameters into deposit, landlord entity, and listing risk categories, which adds little beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 tool as producing a combined rental due-diligence verdict covering deposit, landlord entity, and listing risk. It distinguishes itself from narrower sibling tools through the 'combined' framing, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'computes' or 'returns'.

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 implies use case: when a combined verdict across deposit, landlord entity, and listing risk is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools such as rent_deposit_guard, rental_listing_risk, or lei_check, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives.

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