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 genuinely new context: criteria combine with AND (only `in` gives OR) and results are paged with next_offset telling you where to continue. It also lists commonly useful return fields, which matters because no output schema exists. Rate limits, maximum criteria/limit behavior and error semantics are not covered, keeping it below a 5.

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 compact sentences plus the endpoint, front-loaded with the resource definition, then filter semantics, then paging and useful fields. Every clause carries information an agent needs to construct a call.

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 five-parameter tool with a nested criteria array and no output schema, the description supplies the return-shape hints (next_offset, useful fields) and AND semantics that the schema alone would not make obvious. Gaps remain around whether criteria may be omitted entirely and what the default result ordering is.

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 baseline is 3; the description still earns a bump by naming the useful fields an agent can search on (id, property_id, system_record_state, lease_current_expiry, crt.contact_id) and by explaining next_offset as the continuation token, neither of which the schema states. It stays silent on order_by and search_state, which the schema handles alone.

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 ('Search tenancies') and adds a clarifying gloss ('property management leases') that disambiguates the domain term. It does not explicitly contrast with rex_get_tenancy or the other rex_search_* tools, so sibling differentiation is left to naming convention.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Search' plus the routing hint that field names come from rex_describe_search_fields (mentioned in the schema too). There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus rex_get_tenancy for a single lease, and no exclusions or prerequisites such as account scoping.

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