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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses extensive behavior: it returns a deterministic verification report reconciling recomputed totals against stated totals, flags uncertain fields with status/confidence, never guesses, and includes anonymous usage limits (3/day) plus API key authentication via X-Api-Key header. This is rich behavioral context that exceeds annotation coverage.

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 is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place: purpose and scope, output structure and verification behavior, and usage limits/authentication. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview of return values (property info, per-unit records, stated totals, verification report) and behavioral guarantees (status/confidence, flagging uncertain fields). It covers formats, limitations, and authentication. It does not enumerate every output field, but for a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete.

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% for both parameters, and the schema already explains documentBase64 as base64-encoded PDF/XLSX/CSV bytes and fileName as the original name with extension guiding format detection. The description adds mention of scanned documents and size limits but does not meaningfully expand parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 extracts structured, verified data from a rent roll document, specifying the document types (PDF, Excel .xlsx, or CSV; native or scanned). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tool extract_operating_statement, which targets a different document type.

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 use for rent roll documents and contrasts with the sibling tool by naming the document type, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus extract_operating_statement or provide exclusion criteria. The usage context is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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