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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing result ordering ('newest first as Street orders them') and the paging model, but says nothing about filtering interactions, total counts, or the upstream endpoint's rate/limit 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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose and returned fields first, then ordering, then pagination, then the endpoint. Slightly terse rather than padded, so it earns its length.

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 10-parameter, all-optional list tool with no output schema, the ordering and pagination notes are the essential missing pieces and they are present. However, the description does not help an agent reason about the rich filter surface (status, include, trashed, date windows) or about what the paged response shape looks like, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 every one of the 10 parameters is already documented in the schema, including status enum values, the include list, trashed modes and date ranges. The description only restates page/page_size and does not enrich filter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List lettings offers') and enumerates the fields returned (rent, applicant, property, status), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It is distinguishable from street_get_lettings_offer by the plural/list framing, but it never explicitly contrasts with street_list_sales_offers or the single-offer getter.

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 description implies a browse/paginate use case ('page with page and page_size') but gives no explicit when-to-use versus street_get_lettings_offer or how it relates to street_list_lettings_instructions/applicants. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and the field list.

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