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 adds the ordering guarantee and the paging model, which are genuinely useful, but says nothing about how the `include` embedding or `trashed` behavior affects the response shape.

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 tight clauses with no padding: what it returns, how it orders, how to page. Front-loaded with the resource and its payload. The trailing 'GET /tenancies' is mild redundancy but harmless.

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 read-only list endpoint with a fully documented schema this is close to sufficient, but the omission of `include` is notable: embedding property.owner, tenants or inspections materially changes the response and the agent has to discover it from the schema alone. No output schema exists, so some mention of the `included` sidecar would have helped.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including the next_page convention and the trashed semantics. The description merely repeats page/page_size, adding no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline for full coverage.

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 tenancies') and enumerates the fields returned (property, tenants, owner, rent, dates), which separates it from street_get_tenancy (single record) and street_list_tenants (different resource). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so the distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Pagination guidance ('page with page and page_size') tells the agent how to iterate, and 'newest first as Street orders them' sets expectations about result order. There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus street_get_tenancy or the other list_* endpoints.

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