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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile, but the description adds real behavioral context: results come from the public sitemap and are ordered newest first, and it enumerates the returned fields. It does not discuss pagination behavior, though that is partly covered by the schema parameters.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the listing purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence provides the routing to greystar_article exactly when needed.

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 an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose and sibling routing, which it does. Source, ordering, and the section/slug handoff to greystar_article leave nothing an agent needs missing.

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 the schema already documents page, query, section, and per_page. The description names the section values and implies the section/slug pairing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline of 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 (List) and resource (Greystar renter guides and blog posts), names the sections, the data source (public sitemap), ordering (newest first), and returned fields. It also names the sibling greystar_article, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to greystar_article when the title and body are needed, which gives a clear condition for choosing between the two tools. It stops short of stating when this listing tool is preferable to other Greystar endpoints (e.g., search or newsroom), so it is strong but not fully comprehensive.

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