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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state 'Read only', which is the critical safety signal, plus that the refresh figures are a simulation of what a refresh would write rather than an actual write. It also notes anyone may perform the actual refresh elsewhere, implying no privileged access here. It stops short of describing error behavior or what happens when neither crewId nor wallet is supplied.

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?

Every clause carries information, but it is delivered as one long run-on sentence with nested parentheses ('plus what a refresh would write now (Estate points, tier 0 to 4, percent)'), which is harder to parse than a two- or three-sentence split. The trailing 'Read only.' is well placed and front-loading of the resource name helps.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields for both the crew and wallet modes, including tier bounds. With three optional parameters and no annotations, it covers enough to call the tool correctly; the remaining gap is the no-argument/no-mode case and error conditions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds mode semantics the schema does not: wallet is an alternative to crewId that switches the result to that wallet's Estate points and tier, and homeIds exists so apartments are counted. Those are behavioral consequences of parameter choice, not restatements of 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 names the resource (EstateBoost) and enumerates exactly what state is returned: contract status, boost duration, a crew's current boost (percent, expiry, opt-out), and the simulated refresh output (Estate points, tier 0-4, percent). It is distinguishable from the sibling prepare_estate_boost_refresh via the explicit 'Read only' framing, though the lead-in is phrased as a list of return values rather than a single action verb.

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?

It gives concrete operating instructions: pass homeIds (apartment ids the owner holds, ascending) so apartments count, and use wallet instead of crewId to get a wallet's Estate points and tier. It also routes the mutation case to prepare_estate_boost_refresh. What is missing is an explicit statement of when this tool is the wrong choice (e.g., no-arg behavior).

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