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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It does add the useful behavioral detail that the verdict is 'signed' and combines multiple checks, but it does not explain what signing means, what data sources are used, or failure behavior. This is moderate added context beyond annotations.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core value proposition ('One combined, signed rental due-diligence verdict') and then concisely enumerates the covered risk areas. Every word earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and parameter descriptions are complete, so much of the call contract is already supplied. However, the description does not explain how this tool relates to closely related siblings such as rental_listing_risk and rent_deposit_guard, nor does it clarify when the combined verdict is preferable. It is adequate but leaves the orchestration decision to the agent.

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%, with all 10 parameters individually documented. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the high-level mapping to deposit, landlord entity, and listing risk, which is acceptable given the schema already carries the full burden. Baseline 3 applies.

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 produces a single combined rental due-diligence verdict covering deposit, landlord entity, and listing risk. This specific composition distinguishes it from sibling tools like iban_check, lei_check, rental_listing_risk, and rent_deposit_guard without needing to open their schemas.

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 phrase 'One combined, signed rental due-diligence verdict' implies the tool should be used when a synthesized verdict across all three risk areas is desired, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over separate sibling checks or mention alternatives by name. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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