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 adds the 'after taxes and charges' scope framing but discloses no tax assumptions, currency handling, or rounding behavior beyond that; a 3 reflects modest added value over the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no padding. The trailing 'See list_bundles' pointer is compact and earns its place as a discovery aid, though the inaccurate input list slightly undermines the structure.

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 values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But the description's input inventory conflicts with the actual schema and gives no differentiation from the rental-yield siblings, leaving meaningful gaps for a 5-parameter financial computation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description actively misstates the parameter set: it lists 'vacancy %' and 'tax bracket', neither of which exists in the schema, and omits notary_fees_pct (default 8), which does. This is worse than saying nothing, since an agent may hunt for non-existent inputs.

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 and resource: 'Compute net rental profitability after taxes and charges', which is clearly more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very close siblings calculate_rental_yield, calculate_rental_yield_gross, and calculate_rental_yield_net, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

'Use for real estate investment analysis' is a broad context, not real guidance. With at least four rental-yield siblings in the tool list, the description gives no when-to-use/when-not and names no alternative, leaving selection to guesswork.

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