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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the add-on requirement/authorization constraint and the newest-modification-first ordering. It adds value while annotations carry the safety profile, though it omits pagination/response behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the prerequisite, then the parameter tip and endpoint. Every sentence carries information and 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, the key access prerequisite, and the endpoint. Nothing critical is missing, though pagination behavior could be noted.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description's only parameter mention ('pass count=true for the total') repeats what the schema's count description already states, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('brokerage office roster of the MLS feed') and adds the sort order, which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the related list_agents/list_open_houses siblings, but the resource named is distinct enough to route correctly.

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?

Provides an important prerequisite (Offices API add-on required, demo credentials cannot use it), which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use vs alternative, and no guidance on pagination strategy or when count=true matters.

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