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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: default ordering ('Newest first as Street orders them'), pagination via page and page_size, and that it maps to GET /inspections.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core operation and fields, and then adds ordering, pagination, and endpoint context without unnecessary repetition. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 nine-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough orientation: listed fields, default ordering, pagination, and endpoint. The schema covers filters and enums, though the description could say more about return pagination metadata or filtering scope.

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 schema already documents the nine parameters thoroughly. The description only mentions page and page_size and does not add format, defaults, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 property inspections', and names the fields surfaced (due date, booked date, inspector, status). This clearly separates it from the singular 'street_get_inspection' sibling while remaining precise.

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 listing purpose and pagination guidance are clear, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'street_get_inspection' or other list tools. Usage is mostly implied by the tool name and operation.

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