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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds the underlying GET endpoint and names some returned fields, but does not mention pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or rate limits beyond what the schema already covers.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the API endpoint reference. Every phrase contributes either identification or API context.

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 list tool with eight fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: the resource, the API endpoint, and a sample of returned fields. It omits pagination or result-shape details, but those are largely covered by schema parameter descriptions.

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 all eight optional parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond listing address, class, and portfolio as data dimensions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List properties') and clarifies the domain object as buildings, plus the fields address, class, and portfolio. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling doorloop_get_property, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'List' implies enumeration rather than retrieval of a single property, but the description never states when to use this instead of doorloop_get_property. Usage is only implied through the tool name and verb.

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