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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the list remains available if it becomes empty, which is a behavioral detail not covered by annotations. It also implies the operation is not destructive to the list itself, aligning with destructiveHint=false. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, and includes a useful behavioral note about the list remaining available. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is complete enough. It covers the main use case, the authentication context, and a behavioral nuance. The output schema likely describes the return value, so the description doesn't need to. Slight gap: it doesn't mention what happens if the property is not in the list, but that's not critical.

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 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters: listId and propertyId. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does clarify that propertyId is a listingKey and that the list must be owned by the authenticated user. This is a baseline 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: removing a saved property from a PropFácil list for an authenticated user. It uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('saved property from a list'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_property_list' (which deletes the entire list) and 'save_property_to_list' (which adds a property).

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 specifies when to use the tool: when an authenticated user asks to remove a saved property from a list. It implies the user must be authenticated, which is a key context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tools are clear enough that this is the only removal tool for a property from a list.

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