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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine content-level context beyond that, notably that the resource includes negative fit signals (no small lockers, no climate control, no 24-hour gate access), which an agent could not anticipate from the schema. Return shape is left to the output schema, which is reasonable given one exists.

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?

Everything sits in one sentence and the main clause ('what every unit includes') is front-loaded before the parenthetical detail. The two nested parentheses make it denser than it needs to be, but no clause is filler — each names a distinct piece of returned content.

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 parameterless read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers scope and even the surprising inclusion of exclusion lists. The only omission is whether the content is exhaustive or refreshed, a minor gap given the schema carries structure.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly spends no words on input semantics.

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?

The description concretely enumerates the resource's contents: per-unit inclusions (keypad entry and its hours, video surveillance, drive-up loading, lease terms, power in the 12x30), the homepage amenities list, and the site's fit/exclusion lists. That makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_units_and_prices and get_hours. It loses a point only because it never uses a defining verb such as 'Returns' to frame the resource.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for amenity and suitability questions, and the 'good fit / look elsewhere' mention hints at qualifying customers. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over get_policies, get_units_and_prices, or how_to_rent_and_pay, and no exclusions are given.

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