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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description usefully adds that results are filtered by authorization scope and lists the fields returned, but it says nothing about pagination or what include_inactive actually changes.

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 resource and returned fields, followed by a compact scope/risk/effects line. No wasted prose; the scope metadata is terse and useful for a read tool.

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 no-output-schema list tool the field enumeration is helpful and largely complete, but the undocumented include_inactive flag leaves a real behavioral gap an agent would need to infer.

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 0% for the single include_inactive parameter, and the description never mentions it. With low coverage the description should compensate, but it leaves the agent guessing what toggling inactive properties does.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('habitações'), enumerating what it returns (units, rooms, flats, category, cleaning status, Airbnb link). This clearly distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_property, though it does not explicitly call that out.

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 scoping clause ('do estabelecimento que esta autorização pode ver') implies this lists permission-visible properties, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives like get_property for a single item.

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