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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds a useful boundary beyond annotations: this tool performs calculations only, with no broader analysis or external data lookup, and returns OMR-denominated metrics. No contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences with the calculation scope front-loaded and the usage condition in the second sentence. No filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. The description covers purpose, scope, and currency, but for a 7-parameter calculator it leaves optional-parameter semantics and formula behavior unstated, so an agent cannot fully anticipate how inputs affect the metrics. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 14%, so the description must compensate, but it names no input parameters and explains no unit or formula semantics (e.g., whether vacancyRatePct reduces gross rent or how maintenance aliases resolve). The output terms weakly imply mapping to propertyValue and annualRent, but this is far short of the needed guidance.

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 ('Calculate'), a resource ('a single property'), a defined output set (gross/net rental yield, income, operating costs, simple payback), and an explicit scope ('Calculations only'). The 'Calculations only' phrase and 'single property' scope distinguish it from broader siblings such as analyze_oman_property and compare_properties.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when an agent needs financial metrics (yield, income, payback) for a single property.' It does not name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the selection cue is clear.

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