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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data comes from a public sitemap and results are ordered newest first, which tells the agent what to expect from ordering and freshness.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads the core action and scope, the second delivers the routing instruction. Nothing is repeated 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names key fields. Combined with 100% schema coverage and readOnly/openWorld annotations, an agent has everything needed to list and then drill down via the article tool.

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 page, query, and per_page are already documented in the schema (including the slug-matching behavior of query). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (Greystar corporate newsroom releases and news articles), scope (from the public sitemap), ordering (newest first), and returned fields (slug, URL, last-modified date). It clearly differentiates from greystar_newsroom_article, which it names as the follow-up.

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: 'Use a slug with greystar_newsroom_article for the title, date, and body.' This names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It doesn't state when this listing tool is the right entry point vs. greystar_search or greystar_articles, so it stops short of the full 5.

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