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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe calculation. However, the description omits the side effect of sending a report when sendReportTo is provided, which is a meaningful behavioral detail not covered by annotations. The marketing sentence about DSCR loans adds noise, not transparency.

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 has three sentences: the first is functional, the second lists outputs, and the third is promotional ('USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO — structures STR financing...'). The third sentence does not earn its place for tool selection or use, making the description less concise than it could be. Front-loading is okay, but the marketing fluff reduces efficiency.

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 description covers the purpose and main output categories, but it misses the capability to send a Capital Advisory Report via the sendReportTo parameter, which is a significant feature. It also does not specify that location, state, and bedrooms are required, nor mention optional parameters like purchasePrice. Given no output schema, the description should provide a more complete picture of behavior and requirements.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal value by mentioning location, bedrooms, and property type in the first sentence, but it does not elaborate on parameters like purchasePrice, nightlyRateOverride, or sendReportTo beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 estimates short-term rental (Airbnb/VRBO) revenue potential based on location, bedrooms, and property type, and lists specific outputs (occupancy projections, ADR estimates, seasonal breakdown, comparison to long-term rental income). This distinguishes it from sibling calculators focused on other metrics.

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 implies usage for estimating STR revenue (e.g., 'Estimate short-term rental revenue potential'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other calculators like calc-rental_cashflow or calc-dscr, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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