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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds rich behavioral context beyond that: ordering (newest first), pagination via nextCursor, a 200-item window, hidden-filtering semantics, privacy guarantees (no account identifiers or broker contact details), and the state fields returned. This is exactly the kind of extra signal that helps an agent call the tool correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds five tightly scoped sentences covering pagination, filtering, link behavior, and privacy. Every sentence earns its place 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?

Given the output schema exists, the return values need not be explained. The description covers pagination, filtering, ordering, link behavior, and privacy—everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The only omission (limit behavior) is minor because the schema supplies constraints.

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 33% (cursor only). The description compensates for cursor (pass nextCursor for older alerts) and includeHidden (hidden left out unless true), adding meaning beyond the schema for those two. But the limit parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a gap. Partial compensation yields a 3.

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 (List) and resource (apartments RentReboot already sent to the connected renter), and its scope ('already sent') inherently distinguishes it from sibling list_upcoming_matches and update_alerted_listing. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 usage by stating it lists already-sent alerts and describes pagination and hidden filtering. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to choose this over list_upcoming_matches or other sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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