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; the description usefully adds that results are returned newest-first in Street's own order and that paging is required for the full set. It stays silent on softer behaviors such as whether filters are ANDed or how soft-deleted records are treated, but the added ordering and paging notes clear the lowered bar.

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 clauses with the purpose, facet summary, and ordering/paging guidance packed in the first two sentences – front-loaded and waste-free. The trailing 'GET /sales-applicants' is transport detail that adds little for an agent but costs only a few tokens.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and paging, which is the minimum an agent needs. It omits anything about how the many filters combine, what the 'include' embedding does to the response shape, or what a page payload looks like, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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% across 18 parameters, so the description is not required to document them. The parenthetical facet list ('budget, bedrooms, areas, buying and financial position, lead rating') orients an agent to which filter axes exist, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.

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 sales applicants') and summarizes the facets the records carry (budget, bedrooms, areas, buying/financial position, lead rating), so an agent knows this is the collection endpoint. It does not name the sibling single-record call (street_get_sales_applicant) or contrast with street_list_lettings_applicants, leaving that differentiation to the names alone.

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?

Gives explicit paging mechanics ('page with page and page_size') and states the default ordering, which is actionable context. However, it never says when to use this list versus street_get_sales_applicant, nor how filters should be combined, so usage is largely implied.

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