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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses high-value behavioral traits: the list is always empty with a test key because landlords are real owners, contact details are not returned (they stay in the app), and archived landlords retain their cases but cannot be chosen for a new one. It also states the auth requirement (sign-in or API key). This is well past what the annotations carry.

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 usage condition and scope are front-loaded, and most sentences carry distinct information. Slight redundancy in restating the optional input and the trailing auth sentence, but the density of useful detail justifies the length.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned shape (id, name, archived, case count) and explicitly noting what is withheld (contact details). Combined with the auth requirement, test-key caveat, exclusions, and next-step tools, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 100% and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the archived-retention semantics. The description only mentions 'Input: optional includeArchived' without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List landlords' / 'Returns the organization's landlords (the owners it acts for, saved in the app)') and scopes it to the organization rather than all owners. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like evictions_create_case and evictions_get_case, and it explicitly frames the tool as read-only enumeration.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when the person is a property manager and you need the owner a case is for, or to list one owner's cases'), an explicit when-not ('Do not use this to add or change a landlord'), and names the concrete follow-on tools (evictions_create_case with landlordId, evictions_list_cases with landlordId). Nothing is left to inference.

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