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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that rent is split by owner share percentages, which is a semantic detail beyond annotations, plus the crucial instruction never to guess an id on ambiguity. It doesn't cover pagination or result ordering, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads what is listed and its shape, then moves to usage and matching guidance. It is dense but each clause earns its place; the long parenthetical about percentage splitting is slightly heavy but clarifies the data model.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does: properties with owners/shares and tenancies with tenants, rent and dates. Combined with the usage routing and matching advice, this is close to complete for a read-only list 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 coverage is 100% and the single organisation_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is high. The description reinforces the multi-org requirement implicitly through its data-scoping context, though it doesn't restate the organisation_id rules. Baseline 4 holds for a 1-param tool with full schema 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?

The description states a specific verb (Lists) and resource (rental properties) and details what each result contains: owners with share percentages, and tenancies with tenants, rent and dates. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself by name from sibling list tools like list_income, but the property/owner/tenancy scope is clear enough to differentiate.

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 names downstream tools (list_income, list_expenses, get_rental_report) and the actions (adding rental income, costs, tenancies) that depend on the property and tenancy ids returned here. It also gives a concrete matching workflow: match by label or address, show closest on ambiguity, never guess an id.

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