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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by calling the engine 'explainable' and 'deterministic,' which tells the agent the score is rule-based rather than probabilistic. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 two compact sentences with the core purpose and differentiating mechanism front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and all parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description gives enough context about the risk-signal scope and deterministic rule-engine behavior, though it could mention usage boundaries more explicitly.

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 explains all eight parameters in detail. The description groups several signals conceptually, such as irreversible payment, off-platform pressure, stolen photos, and advance wire signals, but does not add syntax or mapping beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific output, 'tenancy fraud risk score,' and specifies the evaluated fraud signals, so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools such as rental_verdict or rent_deposit_guard, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools. An agent can infer that it is used for rental listing fraud assessment, but there is no stated usage policy.

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