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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real behavior beyond them: result ordering (tower windows floor 1 up cheapest first, then billboards by prominence), the asymmetric filter behavior (floor/face/spot return windows only), and pagination semantics (up to 100 items, pass next as cursor). These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads what is returned and in what order, then filters, then pagination — three dense sentences with no filler or restated title text.

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 shape need not be explained; ordering, filter interaction and pagination are all covered. The only gap is the floorMin/floorMax pair, whose range semantics are unexplained in both description and schema.

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?

With 67% schema coverage and 9 params, the description usefully adds kind, maxPrice and cursor usage plus the filter-scoping rule that floor/face/spot apply to windows only. floorMin/floorMax and face/spot semantics are left to the schema (or undocumented), so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the free ad windows on the tower and the free city billboards, with monthly prices.' It states both the entities covered and the returned attribute (price), which separates it from the singular get_window and from get_prices.

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?

Gives concrete operating guidance: 'use kind to get only one of them', 'maxPrice to cap the monthly price', and the important rule that floor/face/spot filters restrict results to tower windows. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative among check_lease/get_prices/get_window, so it stops short of a 5.

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