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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds real value beyond the annotation: it discloses the exclusion of zero/credit-balance leases, enumerates the aging buckets returned, and cites the backing endpoint (GET /v1/leases/outstandingbalances), which signals the data source and likely pagination surface.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the report purpose and its distinguishing exclusion are front-loaded, and the API endpoint is tucked at the end where it does not obstruct the primary meaning.

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 10-parameter filtered-list tool with no output schema, the description does useful work by naming the returned fields (aged buckets, total balance, dates), partially compensating for the missing return schema. Filter semantics and paging are left entirely to the well-covered schema, so nothing critical is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters including enums and paging. The description's mentions of aging buckets, past-due email, and eviction dates loosely map to balance_duration, past_due_email, and eviction_status but add no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delinquency report: leases that owe money') plus the exact payload it produces (aged buckets, total balance, past-due-email and eviction-pending dates). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling buildium_list_leases because it is scoped to delinquent leases only.

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?

The description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate (delinquency reporting) and an explicit data exclusion ('leases with zero or credit balances are not returned'), which prevents the agent from expecting a full lease roster. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling such as buildium_list_leases for the non-delinquent case.

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