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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only' largely repeats it. However, it adds genuinely non-obvious context by stating the output excludes broker contact details and account identifiers, which annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded sentences that get to the scope and the exclusion behavior quickly. The 'Read-only' clause partially duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, so a small amount of the text does not earn its place.

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 return format needn't be described, and the connection/exclusion behavior is stated. It stops short of defining what 'historical' spans chronologically or what happens to archived availability, which would fully close the gap for a list 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?

There is one optional parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The schema's own min/max/default constraints carry the semantics well enough for a single integer, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb and resource: listing historical apartment records that match a connected renter's saved requirements. The scope is specific and distinguished from generic search siblings by tying results to saved requirements, though no sibling is named explicitly. The naming mismatch (tool name says 'upcoming', body says 'historical') is partly reconciled by 'planning upcoming availability'.

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 phrase 'useful for planning upcoming availability' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no alternative tool is named despite near siblings like get_search_preferences or list_alerted_listings that could be confused with this.

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