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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful sort-order behavior ('Newest first as Street orders them') but says nothing about pagination limits or the shape of 'included'/trashed results beyond what the schema states.

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 purpose and followed by ordering and pagination notes. Efficient with no wasted phrasing, though it could pack field/ordering details slightly tighter.

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?

With 10 optional filters and no output schema, the description carries some return-shape burden, which it partially meets by listing returned fields and ordering. It omits mention of filters like branch, status, include, and trashed, but the rich schema covers those, so gaps are modest.

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 parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes pagination via page/page_size and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 ('List sales offers') and enumerates the returned fields (amount, applicant, property, status), clearly distinguishing it from the singular sibling street_get_sales_offer. It does not explicitly name that sibling or contrast scope, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 concrete operational guidance: newest-first ordering and pagination via page/page_size. It does not say when to prefer the get/list alternatives or note exclusions, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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