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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the shape of returned records (contact details, emergency contact, address, leases) and the upstream endpoint (GET /v1/leases/tenants). It does not mention pagination or result-size behavior, which the schema covers only via limit/offset.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose and return content front-loaded. The filter enumeration in the second sentence partially duplicates the schema rather than adding value, which keeps it short of 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 14-parameter, no-required, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, what records contain, the filterable axes, and the backing endpoint. Pagination and sort behavior are left to the schema, which is acceptable, so the definition is adequate though not exhaustive.

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 every parameter's match semantics are already documented (contains-value, enum values, date format). The description's filter list largely restates a subset of those parameters and omits limit, offset, orderby, and the last_updated range, so it adds little meaning 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 ('List rental tenants') and enumerates what the records contain (contact details, emergency contact, address, leases). This clearly distinguishes it from buildium_get_tenant (single record) and from other list tools such as buildium_list_applicants or buildium_list_leases.

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 filter enumeration ('Filter by name, email, phone, unit number, property, owner, unit ids or lease term status') implies the browse/lookup use case, and the Buildium endpoint mapping gives context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives like buildium_get_tenant or buildium_list_leases when a tenant isn't the right index.

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