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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by enumerating the five unavailable states (taken, reserved, paused, prize, crown) and explaining the domain meaning of each, including that 'prize' is winner-only and 'crown' is never sold. That is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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-loaded with the verb/resource and return values, with the state explanations following efficiently. The second sentence is dense but every clause (each state's meaning) carries information; minor run-on structure keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what is needed: id format, return content, and the semantics of the reason codes the output will contain. Nothing required to call it correctly 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 id example is already in the schema, so the baseline is 3; however, the description decodes the id grammar ('F47-S3' = floor 47, south face, column 3; 'B-1234' = city billboard), adding real semantic meaning beyond the schema's terse example.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('one window or billboard by id') and states precisely what is returned: monthly price and current leaseability. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_windows (search) and get_prices (pricing) because it is a single-entity id lookup.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' — the agent understands it must already have an id, which suggests find_windows as the prerequisite — but no sibling tool is named and there are no explicit when/when-not statements or exclusions (e.g., for bulk pricing vs. get_prices).

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