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 contributes the otherwise-unstated result ordering (newest first) and the pagination protocol, but says nothing about embedding behavior of `include`, default filtering, or result volume.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and terminated with the endpoint; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 8-parameter, no-output-schema list endpoint the parameter surface is fully documented in the schema and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is nearly sufficient; only the shape of the returned list and the included-side-loading are not sketched.

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% and every parameter is documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats page/page_size and ordering, adding no semantics the schema lacks for include, trashed, or the date filters.

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 and even glosses the domain term ('an agreement to sell: property, owner, fees'), which helps an agent unfamiliar with 'sales instruction'. It does not explicitly say to use street_get_sales_instruction for a single record, so sibling differentiation is left to the 'list' prefix.

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?

'Newest first as Street orders them; page with page and page_size' gives ordering and pagination mechanics, but there is no statement of when to choose this over street_list_sales or street_get_sales_instruction, nor any when-not guidance.

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