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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the description adds ordering ('newest first as Street orders them') and paging mechanics. It says nothing about default exclusions (trashed/cancelled rows are dropped by default) or the 'include' embedding side effect, which are the behavioral traits an agent most needs flagged here.

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, ordering stated up front and paging immediately after. The trailing 'GET /valuations' earns little but costs little.

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 14 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should say something about the response shape (pagination metadata such as next_page, the 'included' sidecar when using include). Ordering and paging are covered; the return contract is not.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter carries its own description and enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only names page and page_size and adds no semantics beyond them.

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 and adds a domain gloss ('market appraisals: property, valuer, time, status, outcome') so an agent knows what a valuation record contains. It doesn't explicitly contrast with street_get_valuation, but the list/get split is unambiguous from the names.

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 list-and-paginate usage and tells the agent to page with page/page_size and follow next_page. It gives no guidance on when to use filters (type, branch, status, date ranges) or when to reach for street_get_valuation instead.

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