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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by mentioning 'structured, audited deliverable' and server-side validation. However, it does not elaborate on potential latency, error conditions, or the meaning of openWorldHint, leaving room for more 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 is longer than necessary and includes marketing jargon ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise') that adds little value. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the extensive example list and reference case, while useful, could be trimmed for conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description clearly states the return elements (cap rate, location score, risk flags, recommendation) and provides a concrete reference case. It also mentions data sources and server-side validation, offering sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively, though it omits async behavior details.

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?

With only 11% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by illustrating address, deal_type, asking price, units/keys, sqm, and NOI through examples and a reference case. Yet it leaves async, country_iso2, and investment_thesis unexplained, so it does not fully cover the parameter space.

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 a specific verb ('Screen') and resource ('real estate deal (EU)'), with explicit output components (cap rate vs market, location score, risk flags, deal recommendation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ma_deal_screener by focusing on EU/FR real estate with DVF/Géorisques data.

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?

Provides multiple example prompts showing exactly when to use the tool (e.g., 'Should I pursue this hotel investment...', 'What is the real estate market valuation...'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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