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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing scope limits: it is the *public* page, active agents are surfaced with "status and tool name only," and only the *latest* public says are returned — telling the agent data is deliberately truncated. It does not say what happens when the home is not found.

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?

One dense sentence with zero filler, and the most important identifier ("One home's public page") is front-loaded. The parenthetical field enumerations make it slightly list-like rather than verb-led, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, including which fields are truncated. Combined with full annotation and parameter coverage, an agent has nearly everything needed; only the failure mode for an unknown home is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents accepting an id (h_…) or an exact name. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter — no fuzzy-match, case-sensitivity, or error-on-ambiguity behavior — so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (one home's public page) and enumerates exactly what it contains — name, URL, dwelling, description, residents, active agents, latest says. This lets an agent distinguish it from list_homes (single vs. collection). However, it is written as a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so the retrieval action is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"One home's public page" implies the single-record lookup case and implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_homes, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus listing or other siblings. There are no stated prerequisites (e.g., needing a home id/name) and no exclusions such as non-public or private data.

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