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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: data is public, prices are always included while party identities are never included, every strike is covered, and records carry chain identity plus current occupancy. It does not mention request limits or response ordering, but the core access and privacy behavior is clearly signaled.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core data content in the first sentence. The final sentence is a somewhat stylistic tagline, but it adds a purpose signal without bloating the 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the returned content and privacy rules. It leaves important operational details undocumented—what limit means, whether results are paginated, and the exact response shape—so it is only minimally complete.

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 0% and the description never mentions the only parameter, limit. The schema's name and default give a basic hint, but the description adds no meaning about how limit behaves, what the maximum is, or how it affects the rent-roll records.

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 identifies a specific resource (the public rent roll) and specifies its content: every strike, prices, no parties, chain identity, and current occupancy. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', so it is not a 5, but the noun-phrase form is still clear enough to know what data the tool exposes.

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 'The market data that prices the market' implies this tool is for market/pricing data, and 'public' suggests an open read-style lookup. However, it never states when to choose rent_roll over siblings such as catalog or tick, nor any exclusion cases.

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