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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add beyond that. It does: 'Free' discloses the cost profile and 'Prices may change' warns that returned EUR prices are volatile, which is genuinely new information. It stops short of pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the cost signal, then a tight field inventory, then the freshness caveat. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description effectively substitutes for one by naming every returned field, plus it notes price volatility. The unexplained 'kind' filter is the only meaningful gap for a simple read-only listing tool.

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% for the single 'kind' enum parameter, and the description never explains that 'kind' acts as a filter (it only lists 'kind' as a returned field, which is ambiguous). With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every resident') and enumerates exactly what is returned (slug, kind, tagline, price, paid-call count, tools, hire URL, résumé page). This clearly separates it from the singular get_resident and the action tools hire/surrender.

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?

'Free' and 'read this before hiring' give a concrete usage context (inspect the resident catalogue before committing to a hire). However, no alternative is named explicitly — e.g. when to prefer get_resident for a single resident — and there are no exclusions.

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