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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds behavioral detail on ordering and tie-breaking ('order by rounded net yield, preserving input order for ties'), which is valuable. It does not disclose the exact net yield formula, but that may be in the output schema.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core action and use case. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits. The output schema exists, so return format is not required. The only missing piece is the net yield formula, but the tool's scope and input constraints are well conveyed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'uniquely named properties' and the 2-20 range, but does not explain which fields (e.g., propertyValue, annualRent, maintenanceCost) feed into the net yield calculation. The agent gets no guidance on how to populate the input beyond the schema's structural constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('compare'), a resource ('properties in OMR'), and a clear outcome ('order by rounded net yield, preserving input order for ties'). It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by focusing on multi-property ranking rather than single-property analysis.

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 explicitly says 'Use when an agent must rank or choose between 2-20 candidate properties by net yield.' This gives a clear trigger condition, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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