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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the account scope and REST endpoint, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what happens when the interval window is large – useful additions but not rich behavioral context.

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 fragments with zero filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the filtering note and endpoint. The telegraphic style loses a little clarity (no explicit verb) but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at what a call returns (a list of office records shaped by the fields parameter), which it does not. For a read-only list tool with fully described parameters and annotations, it is adequate but leaves the return shape and filtering edge cases to inference.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds one genuinely new constraint – that filtering is either by a single field or by a time window – which resolves an ambiguity the schema does not state, but it provides no other syntax or format detail.

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 names the resource (offices on a multi-user IDX Broker account) and the underlying endpoint GET /clients/offices, which disambiguates it from siblings such as idx_list_agents or idx_list_mls_locations. The verb is only implied – the title carries 'List' – so it is clear but not stated in the description itself.

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?

It mentions two filter modes ('by one field or by a time window') but never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist (e.g. multi-user account requirement), or what happens with no filters. No exclusions or sibling routing are given.

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