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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are one page, not the whole portfolio, and pagination metadata comes from the vendor — an agent knows it must loop. It stops short of describing the response envelope shape.

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 returned fields and the key pagination constraint. The opening noun phrase lacks a verb and reads as a fragment, but nothing is padded.

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 12 parameters, 50% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should carry more weight. It correctly warns about pagination, the biggest pitfall, but leaves most filtering parameters and the response structure unexplained.

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 only 50%: page, limit, sort, and direction are documented in the schema, but _q, city, postcode, unit_status, full_address, and property_type carry no explanation anywhere. The description doesn't compensate for a single one of those filters — notably _q, whose search semantics are entirely undefined.

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 the resource and the fields returned (address, type, owner, managing agent) plus the underlying endpoint, which is more informative than the bare name. It never states the verb explicitly and doesn't contrast itself with arthur_get_property, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of arthur_get_property as the single-record alternative, and no explanation of which filters to combine. The only usage-relevant statement is the pagination caveat, which is helpful but incidental.

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