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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a state-changing, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that tracked properties produce alerts on verified price or status changes, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't clarify whether tracking requires the property to exist, what happens on untrack, or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the action and resource, then thresholds, then alert behavior. Every sentence adds information without waste. Could be slightly more structured with explicit action-parameter mapping.

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?

With 6 params, no output schema, and partial schema descriptions, the description does not fully explain parameter applicability per action (e.g., listing_id vs property_id), nor does it cover the note parameter or untrack behavior. It's adequate but with clear gaps for a multi-action 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 only 33%, with price_below and min_drop_pct documented in the schema but listing_id, property_id, note, and action lacking descriptions. The description mentions optional price_below and min_drop_pct thresholds, adding some meaning, but doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameter formats or which parameters apply to which action. Baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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 states three actions (track, untrack, list) on properties, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like manage_property_watchlist or save_property_watchlist, which appear to overlap functionally. The purpose is clear enough but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_property_watchlist or save_property_watchlist. The description mentions thresholds but doesn't explain when to set them or what action they apply to. The agent must infer usage from the action enum alone.

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